Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

That has to be Corzine. He made the mistake of getting caught...

No, he made the same mistake as Madoff; he stole from very rich people. That particular crime has serious consequences.
.
.

[don]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Der Spiegel's commentary on the Republican Debates:

Africa is a country. In Libya, the Taliban reigns. Muslims are terrorists; most immigrants are criminal; all Occupy protesters are dirty. And women who feel sexually harassed -- well, they shouldn't make such a big deal about it.

Welcome to the wonderful world of the US Republicans. Or rather, to the twisted world of what they call their presidential campaigns. For months now, they've been traipsing around the country with their traveling circus, from one debate to the next, one scandal to another, putting themselves forward for what's still the most powerful job in the world. As it turns out, there are no limits to how far they will stoop.

It's true that on the road to the White House all sorts of things can happen, and usually do. No campaign can avoid its share of slip-ups, blunders and embarrassments. Yet this time around, it's just not that funny anymore. In fact, it's utterly horrifying.

It's horrifying because these eight so-called, would-be candidates are eagerly ruining not only their own reputations and that of their party, the party of Lincoln lore. Worse: They're ruining the reputation of the United States.

'Freakshow'

They lie. They cheat. They exaggerate. They bluster. They say one idiotic, ignorant, outrageous thing after another. They've shown such stark lack of knowledge -- political, economic, geographic, historical -- that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein and even cause their fellow Republicans to cringe.

"When did the GOP lose touch with reality?" wonders Bush's former speechwriter David Frum in New York Magazine. In the New York Times, Kenneth Duberstein, Ronald Reagan's former chief-of-staff, called this campaign season a "reality show," while Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan confidante Peggy Noonan even spoke of a "freakshow."

That may be the most appropriate description.

Tough times demand tough and smart minds. But all these dopes have to offer are ramblings that insult the intelligence of all Americans -- no matter if they are Democrats, Republicans or neither of the above. Yet just like any freakshow, this one would be unthinkable without a stage (in this case, the media, strangling itself with all its misunderstood "political correctness" and "objectivity") and an audience (the party base, which this year seems to have suffered a political lobotomy).

Factually Challenged

And so the farce continues. The more mind-boggling its incarnations, the happier the US media are to cheer first one clown and then the next, elevating and then eliminating "frontrunners" in reliable news cycles of about 45 days.

Take Herman Cain, "businessman." He sat out the first wave of sexual harassment claims against him by offering a peculiar argument: Most ladies he had encountered in his life, he said, had not complained.

In the most recent twist, a woman accused Cain of having carried on a 13-year affair with her. That, too, he tried to casually wave off, but now, under pressure, he says he wants to "reassess" his campaign.

If Cain indeed drops out, the campaign would lose its biggest caricature: He has been the most factually challenged of all these jesters.

As CEO of the "Godfather's" pizza chain, Cain killed jobs -- but now poses as the job-creator-in-chief. Meanwhile, he seems to lack basic economic know-how, let alone a rudimentary grasp of politics or geography. Libya confounds him. He does not believe that China is a nuclear power. And all other, slightly more complicated questions get a stock answer: "Nine-nine-nine!" Remember? That's Cain's tax reduction plan that would actually raise taxes for 84 percent of Americans.

Has any of that disrupted Cain's popularity in the media or with his fan base? Far from it. Since Oct. 1, he has collected more than $9 million in campaign donations. Enough to plow through another onslaught of denouements.

No Shortage of Chutzpah

Then there's Newt Gingrich, the current favorite. He's a political dinosaur, dishonored and discredited. Or so we thought. Yet just because he studied history and speaks in more complex sentences than his rivals, the US media now reflexively hails him as a "Man of Ideas" (The Washington Post) -- even though most of these ideas are lousy if not downright offensive, such as firing unionized school janitors, so poor children could do their jobs.

Pompous and blustering, Gingrich gets away with this humdinger as well as with selling himself as a Washington outsider -- despite having made millions of dollars as a lobbyist in Washington. At least the man's got chutzpah.

The hypocrisy doesn't end here. Gingrich claims moral authority on issues such as the "sanctity of marriage," yet he's been divorced twice. He sprang the divorce on his first wife while she was sick with cancer. (His supporters' excuse: It's been 31 years, and she's still alive.) He cheated on his second wife just as he was pressing ahead with Bill Clinton's impeachment during the Monica Lewinsky affair, unaware of the irony. The woman he cheated with, by the way, was one of his House aides and 23 years his junior -- and is now his perpetually smiling third wife.

Americans have a short memory. They forget, too, that Gingrich was driven out of Congress in disgrace, the first speaker of the house to be disciplined for ethical wrongdoing. Or that he consistently flirts with racism when he speaks of Barack Obama. Or that he enjoyed a $500,000 credit line at Tiffany's just as his campaign was financially in the toilet and he ranted about the national debt. Chutzpah, indeed.

Yet the US media rewards him with a daily kowtow. And the Republicans reward him too, by having put him on top in the latest polls. Mr. Hypocrisy, the bearer of his party's hope.

"I think he's doing well just because he's thinking," former President Clinton told the conservative online magazine NewsMax. "People are hungry for ideas that make some sense." Sense? Apparently it's not just the Republicans who have lost their minds here.

The Eternal Runner-Up

And what about the other candidates? Rick Perry's blunders are legendary. His "oops" moment in suburban Detroit. His frequently slurred speech, as if he was drunk. His TV commercials putting words in Obama's mouth that he didn't say (such as, "Americans are 'lazy'"). His preposterous claim that as governor of Texas he created 1 million jobs, when the total was really just about 100,000. But what's one digit? Elsewhere, Perry would have long ago been disqualified. But not here in the US.

Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann has fallen off the wagon, although she's still tolerated as if she's a serious contender. Ron Paul's fan club gets the more excited, the more puzzling his comments get. Jon Huntsman, the only one who occasionally makes some sort of sense, has been relegated to the poll doldrums ever since he showed sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators.

Which leaves Mitt Romney, the eternal flip-flopper and runner-up, who by now is almost guaranteed to clinch the nomination, even though no one in his party seems to like or want him. He stiffly delivers his talking points, which may or may not contradict his previous positions. After all, he's been practicing this since 2008, when he failed to snag the nomination from John McCain. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

As an investor, Romney once raked in millions and, like Cain, killed jobs along the way. So now he says he's the economy's savior. To prove that, he has presented an economic plan that the usually quite conservative business magazine Forbes has labeled "dangerous," asking incredulously, "About Mitt Romney, the Republicans can't be serious." Apparently they're not, but he is, running TV spots against Obama already, teeming with falsehoods.

Good for Ratings

What a nice club that is. A club of liars, cheaters, adulterers, exaggerators, hypocrites and ignoramuses. "A starting point for a chronicle of American decline," was how David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, described the current Republican race.

The Tea Party would take issue with that assessment. They cheer the loudest for the worst, only to see them fail, as expected, one by one. Which goes to show that this "movement," sponsored by Fox News, has never been interested in the actual business of governing or in the intelligence and intellect that requires. They are only interested in marketing themselves, for ratings and dollars. So the US elections are a reality show after all, a pseudo-political counterpart to the Paris Hiltons, Kim Kardashians and all the "American Idol" and "X Factor" contestants littering today's TV. The cruder, the dumber, the more bizarre and outlandish -- the more lucrative. Especially for Fox News, whose viewers were recently determined by Fairleigh Dickinson University to be far less informed than people who don't watch TV news at all.

Maybe that's the solution: Just ignore it all, until election day. Good luck with that -- this docudrama with its soap-opera twists is way too enthralling. The latest rumor du jour involves a certain candidate who long ago seemed to have disappeared from the radar. Now she may be back, or so it is said, to bring order into this chaos. Never mind that her name is synonymous with chaos: Sarah Palin.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-800850.html

Lending credence to the notion The Fix Is In. Obama hasn't exhausted his usefulness for FIRE. Two years of austerity from above and he'll be the most unpopular president in history. Then he can be impeached. Does anybody not think that will distract a sizable chunk of the bottom 99%. They would be dancing in the streets, albeit in barrels, not pantaloons.

[astonas]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Yeah, it's more than fair to say the U.S. brand is largely destroyed in much of Northern Europe. I am led to believe that the southern states are more friendly, though they have little political capital at the moment. This is why I think the idea of Europe deliberately letting the U.S. and U.K. banking system fail is not as big a stretch as it used to be, military might notwithstanding. (They would be betting that the U.S. wouldn't actually invade Europe if the only aggression is economic - too hard to sell internally.)

I would think that an aggressive argument is being prepared in Europe that the U.S. has done more harm in the last decade than good over the previous several, and should be told to take a hike.

Are there any iTulip'ers in other European countries that could chime in on how the local sentiment towards the U.S. and Britain is faring? Specifically, has press coverage, or the mood in the street recently turned more negative? Thanks in advance!

[we_are_toast]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

“I'll tell you what. 10,000 bucks? Ten-thousand-dollar bet?”

Corporations are people and $10,000 spur of the moment bets as if it was loose pocket change. That'll sure impress middle class Independent voters who are worried about or already lost their jobs, and are underwater in their mortgage.

I have only been to one circus in my life, but if all circuses are half as entertaining as this one, I sure have been missing a lot. The Democratic campaign commercials just keep rolling out of every debate.

This may not hurt Romney too bad in the primaries, but it sure doesn't help him catch Newt, and it'll most certainly come back to haunt him in the general. This may do it for Romney. The long time Republican king makers have to be outside on the window ledge watching what's happening in their party. It'll be very interesting to see if they can pull a rabbit out of their hat.

[don]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Republican White House hopeful Newt Gingrich has surged ahead of rival Mitt Romney nationwide, but his lead in Iowa has faded ahead of the January 3 caucuses, two new polls showed.

Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, and Romney are seeking their party's nomination to take on Democratic President Barack Obama in the November 2012 election.

The Iowa vote, which kicks off the Republican presidential nominating process, will be seen as a crucial test of strength for Gingrich, who only weeks ago took the lead from long-time frontrunner Romney.

Gingrich now has 40 percent support among likely Republican voters nationwide, far ahead of the 23 percent support for Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

National polls are not decisive in a contest fought on a state-by-state basis, but do reflect the temperature of national opinion of a particular candidate.

In Iowa, Gingrich tops a Public Policy Polling survey of likely Republican voters with 22 percent support, just slightly ahead of Texas Congressman Ron Paul with 21 percent -- a major drop from the nine-point lead he enjoyed in the previous PPP survey one week ago.

Romney's support in Iowa -- a largely rural midwestern state which barely figures in the general election but is key as the first official nominating contest -- was unchanged at 16 percent since last week.

"Newt Gingrich’s momentum is fading in Iowa," said PPP president Dean Debnam.
Gingrich has come under fire from members of the party's religious base over his admitted extramarital affairs. Both Romney and Texas Governor Rick Perry have run ads in Iowa emphasizing their family values credentials.

"When it comes to his character record, he’s a very fine, empty suit with a broken zipper," wrote Iowa pastor Albert Calaway, a member of the Truth, Values and Leadership evangelical group, according to local media.

Gingrich has also been criticized for accepting some $1.6 million as a consultant to Freddie Mac, the government-owned mortgage lender and target of conservative critics.

"The attacks on him appear to be taking a heavy toll," PPP said in a statement, noting that his support among the ultra-conservative Tea Party wing of the party has slipped from 35 percent to 24 percent.

Gingrich has had difficulty forming a steady campaign organization to do battle against Romney's well-financed campaign juggernaut.

http://news.yahoo.com/gingrich-ahead...040030925.html

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0PAJNntoRgA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

of which there are many parodies . . .

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...ck=patrick.net

[don]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Newt gone already? We hardly knew ya . . . again

Newt Gingrich: end of the surge

GOP grandees have come to the conclusion that Newt Gingrich cannot win the presidency

We've officially reached the end of the Newt Surge and – whether the data support the thesis or not – moved on to the Establishment Counter-attack. After a week or so of stunned silence, the Republican establishment, under the very uneasy leadership of Mitt Romney, has roused to the unavoidable truth (now backed up by hard data) that nominating Newt Gingrich means all but giving up any chance of taking the presidency in 2012.

Romney's campaign is making an all out push to convince voters that Newt is, in a word, nuts. The Washington Examiner is out with an endorsement of Mitt Romney. The National Review is out with an anti-endorsement of Newt Gingrich. Paul Ryan's surprise announcement of a new Medicare plan also aims to support Romney's positioning in the primary battle.

Backing this mounting effort, there's a raft of new polls showing Newt slowing down if not yet slipping in Iowa after an onslaught of harsh attack ads from Romney, Paul and Perry. A new poll came out of New Hampshire overnight showing that Romney still remains firmly in the lead there. And Politico was out with a story on Wednesday night questioning whether Newt's blowing it in Iowa and possibly blowing the nomination with an indifferent campaigning style.

Critical to pulling all this information together is to see that not that much objectively has changed in the polling data since a few days ago — Mitt's always been in the lead in New Hampshire. But there's enough in the numbers for the press narrative to start to change. And that's the prism through which to see almost everything that comes down the pike today.

And remember, there's a big debate tonight.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...h-end-of-surge

[jiimbergin]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/...ontrunner.html

Ron Paul Is Now the Republican Frontrunner

Posted on December 19, 2011 by WashingtonsBlog

Ron Paul Pulls Into the Lead


The Atlantic notes:

A new poll from Public Policy Polling shows that Ron Paul has taken the lead in the Iowa caucus race, while Newt Gingrich’s support is fading fast. A different Gallup poll shows Gringrich still holding the lead, but slipping, while The New York Times has Paul in the lead as well.
Gingrich has seen his numbers in the PPP poll drop from 27 percent to 14 percent in just three weeks, while his favorability rating is now split at 46 percent for to 47 percent against, the worst of any candidate not named Jon Huntsman.
***
Perhaps the most telling secondary question was, “Do you think Newt Gingrich has strong principles?” Only 36 percent say that he does, but for Paul that number was 73 percent.

Why is Mr. Paul so popular?
As I pointed out in September, Americans overwhelmingly want:

• The Federal Reserve to be reined in if not abolished

• The never-ending, open-ended, goalpost-moving wars to stop and the troops to be brought home

• Our liberties to be restored, and the martial law indefinite detention idiocy to be reversed

Paul has consistently championed these three American wishes for three decades. None of the other Republican (or Democratic) candidates are on the right side of history on any of these issues.

[c1ue]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

This was in the USA Today for Monday, 12/19/11

2012 vs past elections.png

(Excel wouldn't paste without losing formatting - vBulletin is highly schizophrenic in this regard)

[don]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

for the cynics among us, something perhaps of interest . . .

Wager on elections? You bet

By: Josh Boak
December 19, 2011 06:00 AM EST

More Americans may soon be able to openly wager in the markets about whether President Barack Obama wins re-election or Republicans gain control of the Senate.

Political junkies have previously placed “bets” on the presidential race through the Iowa Electronic Markets and the Irish exchange Intrade. But the federally regulated market being set up by Chicago-based Nadex has a major difference – they could cash in.

Nadex said it plans to file a request Monday with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to list contracts on the victor of the 2012 presidential race and the majority parties in the House and Senate.

If the federal regulator has no objections, trading could start as early as January 4, the day after the Iowa caucuses, Nadex executives said. The CFTC — which could hold up the listing for further analysis — declined comment on its procedures.

Introducing these so-called “prediction markets” to the broader public could end up giving a better read of the horse race than traditional polls.

“We believe when someone puts his money where his mouth is, it will be more accurate,” said Nadex chief executive Yossi Beinart. “It’s not just a game necessarily.”

Similar prediction markets are already valued tools for political observers.

Forecasts from the Iowa Electronic Markets in the last week of four presidential elections have proven to be more accurate than the final Gallup polls.

Intrade volume on the Republican presidential nominee has already topped 3.2 million shares this cycle, compared to just 1.9 million in 2008, according to Carl Wolfenden, the exchange’s operations manager.

The Nadex contracts would be valued on a scale of 0 to 100, which lets the market determine the percentage likelihood of, say, Obama winning.

If the contract on Obama costs $51—meaning a 51 percent chance of a November 6 triumph for the president—and he cruises to victory, the owner would earn a $49 profit, minus a transaction fee. The person betting against Obama would be out $49.

Or, if a fan of the new Newt Gingrich Civil War novel “The Battle of the Crater” buys shares in the former House speaker at $10 and sells him for $40, he pockets a $30 profit—and covers the sticker price of the book.

But just because a new market exists to speculate on the future of the U.S. government doesn’t mean that Americans will automatically flock to it.

“There’s always a puzzle when new financial markets begin as to whether people will want to trade in them,” said Justin Wolfers, a University of Pennsylvania economics professor. “Whenever economists think up new ideas of things people want to trade, often we’re wrong.”

Companies that might want to hedge political risk can already do so through proxy investments, he said, noting that oil industry stocks might in theory increase after a Republican victory.

Wolfers added that even prediction markets with thin trading volumes can still generate meaningful information about an election.

The rebirth of political markets was made possible, in part, by the Dodd-Frank financial reform passed last year.
By specifically banning contracts tied to terrorism, assassination, war, or any illegal activities, the law provided guidance indicating that speculation on elections was again acceptable.

“We think it’s not just consistent with the letter of the law,” said Nadex general counsel Tim McDermott, “but the spirit.”

Starting in 2001, the Defense Department took steps to sponsor a market where traders could forecast military activity, political instability, economic growth and Western terrorist casualties, among other geopolitical risks.

The project was canned in 2003 after rebukes by senators Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who said at the time that “the idea of a federal betting parlor on atrocities and terrorism is ridiculous and it’s grotesque.”

Financial speculation about government policy has generated a fair amount of controversy in the past.

The markets were once a staple of American politicking before World War II, according to a paper by University of North Carolina economists Paul Rhode and Koleman Strumpf.

Wall Street brokers drove the wagering—which in the 1916 presidential election exceeded more than $200 million in today’s dollars. The sum was roughly twice the total spending on election campaigns that year.

Complaints that “election betting was immoral and contrary to republican values,” Rhode and Strumpf wrote, led to a New York state crackdown, but the death knell might have been the 1939 legalization of pari-mutuel betting on horse races that gave eager gamblers a better fix than a drawn-out campaign.

But Nadex hopes the grueling pace of modern-day campaigning — with the GOP presidential candidates already holding 13 debates — will help their contracts capture the turbulence, swinging in response to every triumph and each gaffe.

“They will move,” Beinart said, “when there are political events.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70624.html

[cjppjc]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

for the cynics among us, something perhaps of interest . . .

Wager on elections? You bet

By: Josh Boak
December 19, 2011 06:00 AM EST

More Americans may soon be able to openly wager in the markets about whether President Barack Obama wins re-election or Republicans gain control of the Senate.

Political junkies have previously placed “bets” on the presidential race through the Iowa Electronic Markets and the Irish exchange Intrade. But the federally regulated market being set up by Chicago-based Nadex has a major difference – they could cash in.

Nadex said it plans to file a request Monday with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to list contracts on the victor of the 2012 presidential race and the majority parties in the House and Senate.

If the federal regulator has no objections, trading could start as early as January 4, the day after the Iowa caucuses, Nadex executives said. The CFTC — which could hold up the listing for further analysis — declined comment on its procedures.

Introducing these so-called “prediction markets” to the broader public could end up giving a better read of the horse race than traditional polls.

“We believe when someone puts his money where his mouth is, it will be more accurate,” said Nadex chief executive Yossi Beinart. “It’s not just a game necessarily.”

Similar prediction markets are already valued tools for political observers.

Forecasts from the Iowa Electronic Markets in the last week of four presidential elections have proven to be more accurate than the final Gallup polls.

Intrade volume on the Republican presidential nominee has already topped 3.2 million shares this cycle, compared to just 1.9 million in 2008, according to Carl Wolfenden, the exchange’s operations manager.

The Nadex contracts would be valued on a scale of 0 to 100, which lets the market determine the percentage likelihood of, say, Obama winning.

If the contract on Obama costs $51—meaning a 51 percent chance of a November 6 triumph for the president—and he cruises to victory, the owner would earn a $49 profit, minus a transaction fee. The person betting against Obama would be out $49.

Or, if a fan of the new Newt Gingrich Civil War novel “The Battle of the Crater” buys shares in the former House speaker at $10 and sells him for $40, he pockets a $30 profit—and covers the sticker price of the book.

But just because a new market exists to speculate on the future of the U.S. government doesn’t mean that Americans will automatically flock to it.

“There’s always a puzzle when new financial markets begin as to whether people will want to trade in them,” said Justin Wolfers, a University of Pennsylvania economics professor. “Whenever economists think up new ideas of things people want to trade, often we’re wrong.”

Companies that might want to hedge political risk can already do so through proxy investments, he said, noting that oil industry stocks might in theory increase after a Republican victory.

Wolfers added that even prediction markets with thin trading volumes can still generate meaningful information about an election.

The rebirth of political markets was made possible, in part, by the Dodd-Frank financial reform passed last year.
By specifically banning contracts tied to terrorism, assassination, war, or any illegal activities, the law provided guidance indicating that speculation on elections was again acceptable.

“We think it’s not just consistent with the letter of the law,” said Nadex general counsel Tim McDermott, “but the spirit.”

Starting in 2001, the Defense Department took steps to sponsor a market where traders could forecast military activity, political instability, economic growth and Western terrorist casualties, among other geopolitical risks.

The project was canned in 2003 after rebukes by senators Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who said at the time that “the idea of a federal betting parlor on atrocities and terrorism is ridiculous and it’s grotesque.”

Financial speculation about government policy has generated a fair amount of controversy in the past.

The markets were once a staple of American politicking before World War II, according to a paper by University of North Carolina economists Paul Rhode and Koleman Strumpf.

Wall Street brokers drove the wagering—which in the 1916 presidential election exceeded more than $200 million in today’s dollars. The sum was roughly twice the total spending on election campaigns that year.

Complaints that “election betting was immoral and contrary to republican values,” Rhode and Strumpf wrote, led to a New York state crackdown, but the death knell might have been the 1939 legalization of pari-mutuel betting on horse races that gave eager gamblers a better fix than a drawn-out campaign.

But Nadex hopes the grueling pace of modern-day campaigning — with the GOP presidential candidates already holding 13 debates — will help their contracts capture the turbulence, swinging in response to every triumph and each gaffe.

“They will move,” Beinart said, “when there are political events.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70624.html

And this will add liquidity to the process?

[astonas]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

And this will add liquidity to the process?

Yep, now the politicians will run sozzled!

[don]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxtRD...layer_embedded

[we_are_toast]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Well, the Iowa circus, I mean caucus, is over. The winners: Santorum and Obama. The losers: everybody else. Perry's history, Bachmann will be gone after South Carolina, Romney still can't do any better than 2008, Paul can't increase the Libertarian wing of the party, and Romney awoke a monster in Newt Gingrich.

Romney and Paul demonstrated the power of money in campaigns. Repeat a lie often enough and you can fool most of the people most of the time. A torrent of negative ads played to an uninformed public is very effective. Since the public won't take it's responsibility to become informed citizens seriously, campaign finance reform to prevent the torrent of misleading information is the only hope to preserve the democracy.

Newt, who I think started this campaign as a book tour to promote his future lobbying ventures, is now really mad at how he was treated in Iowa and will be in for some vengeance against Romney, and will stick it out longer than he planned. If Newt can keep from collapsing in NH, he may do very well in South Carolina and Florida. If Perry's votes split for Newt and Santorum it hurts Romney in the south and helps him in the west and Northeast. Newt and Santorum have to fight it out for the not Romney vote. The sooner one collapses, the worse it'll be for Romney.

This continues to be the weirdest and most entertaining nomination process I've ever seen. Obama has to be loving it.

Update: About 5 minutes after I posted this, I heard on the radio that Bachmann has cancelled a trip to South Carolina and has called a news conference. It will be very, very interesting to see how the 15% support for Perry/Bachmann will break. Most of this is religious support, so most of it will probably go to Santorum with Newt picking up some, but I really can't see Romney getting much.

[Prazak]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

GOP elites to huddle to stop Mitt By: Jonathan Martin January 4, 2012 11:12 AM EST

A group of movement conservatives has called an emergency meeting in Texas next weekend to find a “consensus” Republican presidential hopeful, POLITICO has learned. “You and your spouse are cordially invited to a private meeting with national conservative leaders of faith at the ranch of Paul and Nancy Pressler near Brenham, Texas, with the purpose of attempting to unite and to come to a consensus on which Republican presidential candidate or candidates to support, or which not to support,” read an invitation that is making its way into in-boxes Wednesday morning. The meeting is being hosted by such prominent conservative figures as James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; Don Wildmon, onetime chairman of the American Family Association; and Gary Bauer, himself a former presidential candidate. Many of the individuals on the host list attended a previous closed-door session with Rick Perry this summer, but Perry’s candidacy stalled out, and he returned to Texas after a disappointing fifth-place finish in Iowa. Movement conservatives are concerned that a vote split between Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum among base voters could enable Mitt Romney to grab the GOP nomination. A source who shared the invitation said the meeting was about how to avoid such a possibility. Yet time is short, with New Hampshire Tuesday and both South Carolina and Florida contests in January. In many ways, the Texas meeting is an 11th-hour version of the conversation that many conservative activists have been having for more than a year, how to find a down-the-line conservative to stop Romney — and until now, they’ve come up short. Romney edged out Santorum by eight votes in the Iowa caucuses, and Gingrich placed a distant fourth, behind Ron Paul. Santorum seems best positioned to take on the mantle of Romney-stopper, particularly given his own appeal to evangelical voters in Iowa, but his sudden surge has left him heading into future contests short of cash and on-the-ground organizations in upcoming states. Gingrich praised Santorum in his concession speech Tuesday in Iowa, but showed no sign of dropping out of the race — pledging to assail Romney as a “Massachusetts moderate” while campaigning in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Michele Bachmann, who never caught fire with conservative elites, ended her campaign Wednesday. On Tuesday night, a prominent Iowa conservative, Bob Vander Platts, called on Republicans to unite behind Santorum in hopes of stopping Romney. Vander Platts, who has backed Santorum, suggested Gingrich should reassess his candidacy. If Republicans are going to put up a “pro-family conservative against Mitt Romney, some decisions need to be made,” the former gubernatorial candidate told reporters at a Santorum rally.

[c1ue]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

This continues to be the weirdest and most entertaining nomination process I've ever seen. Obama has to be loving it.

I think that this should actually make you sad.

Chris Hedges, in the video LargoWinch put up, described Obama as a media brand put out by the banksters.

I personally can see little to dispute this view.

Obama is neither liberal, nor progressive, nor even a proponent of his own ethnicity.