2012 South Carolina Primary

A wise man once said: "It ain't over 'til its over." Nowhere has that been proven more true than tonight in South Carolina where Newt Gingrich has emerged with a landslide victory in their Republican primaries. In a race which has seen all manner of stunning results, this should come as no surprise. However, I think it comes as a rebuke of the media attacks that have been ravaging Gingrich all week. The voters of South Carolina saw through the media attack machine and with a loud voice, declared they'll have none of it.

We're also down to 4 candidates as of tonight. Jon Huntsman withdrew, and gave his endorsement to Mitt Romney.
Rick Perry also dropped out, giving his endorsement to Newt Gingrich. A development I managed to completely miss somehow. That damned Oblivion gate problem had me distracted.

Though the results are not fully tallied, the writing is on the wall. So I'll get right to it.

With 90% of precincts reporting, as of 7:00PM PST:

Newt Gingrich - 40% (214,702 votes, 21 delegates)
Mitt Romney - 27% (143,508 votes)
Rick Santorum - 17% (92,834 votes)
Ron Paul - 13% (71,917 votes)

Delegate Totals to Date

Newt Gingrich: 21 delegates.
Mitt Romney: 19 delegates.
Rick Santorum: 12 delegates.
Ron Paul: 3 delegates.

1,144 required to win.

Here's to hoping that Newt stays with it. At this point, he is in fact the best candidate of the bunch. Last week, I was all set to call this Romney's race. I'm not backing off from that just yet, but Newt has turned this into a serious contest with this blowout victory tonight. Now if we could just get Ron Paul out of the way.

The next contest up is 10 days from now in Florida. We'll see what comes of that since they've been bitch-slapped by the RNC for holding their primary "too early".
.........................
RIP United States of America

July 1776 - November 2012.

       
« SOPA Hysteria
2012 Florida Primary »

Posted on Jan 21, 2012 6:33 pm by Samson in: | 24 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
You know, my dad actually likes Ron Paul's foreign policy plans (or rather, plans to abandon).

There is a point to be had there, though, because Ron Paul has somewhat the right idea (though what he proposes is textbook insanity). America needs to stop thinking we are the harbingers of freedom and justice. Of course, completely cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world is just as nutty an idea as that.

The point: America stays the hell out of another country's business unless we are either A: asked to intervene or B: world events (such as an ally having war declared on them) would force us to intervene.

Otherwise, we assume neutral countries want nothing to do with us. Kinda like our foreign policy stance pre-WWII.

       
Edited by ThomasKaira on Jan 21, 2012 7:49 pm
ThomasKaira said:

You know, my dad actually likes Ron Paul's foreign policy plans (or rather, plans to abandon).

There is a point to be had there, though, because Ron Paul has somewhat the right idea (though what he proposes is textbook insanity). America needs to stop thinking we are the harbingers of freedom and justice. Of course, completely cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world is just as nutty an idea as that.

The point: America stays the hell out of another country's business unless we are either A: asked to intervene or B: world events (such as an ally having war declared on them) would force us to intervene.

Otherwise, we assume neutral countries want nothing to do with us. Kinda like our foreign policy stance pre-WWII.


I like this logic.

Anyway, I was listening to a Democrat strategist commenting on the Republican candidate race, and he was hoping Gingrich would win because he felt that Romney's more moderate views would have a broader appeal to the general public. Which is an interesting way of looking at it.

EDIT; Gingrich won. I guess both Samson and the Democrat guy will be happy, if for different reasons.

       
Edited by prettyfly on Jan 22, 2012 12:01 am
Romney is just a republican white Obama as far as policy goes, why vote out one guy for another guy with the same views. As far as the others go, i actually like some of what Ron Paul has to say in regards to certain issues, he is certainly not a cookie cutter candidate and is the most different of the lot, which is why he has no hope, because main street republican voters do not want change, they want nostalgia and the good old days. Its just a pity Herman Kayne has gone, him i actually liked a lot.

       
Ron Paul would be a solid candidate if he'd lay off the nutty isolationist routine. Domestically, if he had never opened his mouth about foreign policy, I'd be on board with him in a heartbeat. Mostly for his aggressive stance toward the Federal Reserve. Which is why I think he should be made Treasury Secretary once we've gotten rid of Obama. Then you can turn him loose to shred the Fed.

Herman Cain got hosed by the media, pure and simple, but his shenanigans since dropping out have turned me sour on him as a potential future candidate. He was involved in Stephen Colbert's stupidity during the South Carolina primaries. Making a mockery of the process is a bad way to win favors.

       
I'd almost echo ThomasKaira's post, except that it's me rather than my father, but for the logic he's expressed.

Given that Ron Paul's not going to win, Samson's idea sounds pretty good to me and I can't really argue against Newt Gingrich at this point given the remaining choices.

As for my father, his thoughts actually echoed Fury's the last time we spoke about this, which was right after Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary, short of the wanting nostalgia rather than change.

Change can be good, but not just any change and not just for the sake of change. Frankly, we would all love to see a return to "the good old days", but not in every way and not just for the sake of nostalgia. Let's face it, there were some much better conditions in this country in many ways just a few decades ago when Ronald Reagan was still in office, but some aspects have definitely improved drastically too. I certainly wouldn't want to give up my nice modern computers for the ones we had available back in the 80s, but I'd very happily take a return to Reaganomics. Just to give you one quick and easy example. ;)

       
Edited by Conner on Jan 25, 2012 11:34 am
The problem with Reaganomics as such was that it wasn't actually 'small government low taxes', but 'large government, low taxes, but we'll pretend that we're actually running small government instead'. And ultimately, thats what the American people want, but it just doesn't work for long periods. Things certainly didn't end up going to far with Reagan (like things have gone this time under GB junior and Obama) for a variety of reasons (lack of massive foreign expeditions and Reagan's willingness to increase taxes if necessary, riding on a cyclical recovery and spending cuts by his predecessors to reign in debt), but it isn't sound economic logic; if America applies Reaganomics today (at least as Reagan did), the debt would be going up, not down.

       
Spending cuts by his predecessors? Man, what are they feeding you guys for media propaganda down there? Carter was no spendthrift, and neither was Clinton. Democrats don't know the meaning of the term "spending cut". Unfortunately, neither did GWB, and as a result, he's tarnished the image of what it means to be a Reaganite. God. 1980 seems like so long ago now :(

       
Hey, it worked beautifully at the time, how ever you look at it. One can hope that, were he still alive and back in office (along with his cabinet that helped make it all possible), he'd have a variation of his original Reaganomics that would work just as effectively for the current situation. Besides, if we could go back to being as proportionately prosperous compared to the rest of the world as we were back then, I'm not sure we'd be so terribly upset about the debt going up a bit. We get upset at clearly wasteful spending most when we're all hungry and unemployed, a fact which Obama seems to have missed. You remember, historically speaking, how successful the "chicken in every pot" campaign was?

Just to add to my post in response to Samson's ninja: Amen, Samson!

       
Edited by Conner on Jan 25, 2012 12:53 pm
Did I say predecessors. Whoops, I meant successors. Reagan certainly pulled the economy out of a slump per say, but you have to look at the whole picture. He didn't massive debt when he came in (as opposed to the current situation), and had the benefit of inheriting an economy entering a cyclic upturn anyway (Obama entered and economy entering into a downturn, on the other hand). I'm not advocating rampant government spending either, for sure (I opposed the stimulus spending in Australia, for one), but its important to have a full picture of what particular policies do. Cutting tax and raising spending, as per what Reaganomics actually involved, isn't going to fix the American economy.

Also, Clinton and spending cuts...when he came in their wasn't a surplus and when he left there was, so he clearly did something right.

       
Hey, it worked beautifully at the time, how ever you look at it


And this is kind of the crux of my nostalgia point. What they did worked well at the time, but do it today with a totally different set of circumstances and they would fail miserably and the proof of that is in today's trickle down economics in which the rich will do whatever they can to get more wealthy at the expense of national interests if need be. The world today is much more global, much more instant and much more interconnected. What happens in countries like Greece and Portugal has an effect on what happens to the US and Australian economies. There is just no getting away from it.

Reaganomics worked in the 80's and 90's because people were not greedy, they played fair and everyone across society benefited from it. The opposite is true now, greed is rife, CEO's and Directors are more worried about their own bonuses and they do not care if they have to ship YOUR job to China or shut down your department to make that extra couple of Million and then want tax breaks so they pay less than the middle class under the illusion that the rich create jobs.

       
On the contrary, Fury, greed is not a new concept. It's been rampant since biblical times, the 80s and 90s had many good points to look back upon, but a totally selfless society really wasn't among them. I'm not being nostalgic here, I'm crediting Ronald Reagan and his cabinet members with being a really smart and effective team that understood the economy well enough to come up with the right tact for the times and who, if still in the position to do so, could probably come up with an equally impressive, even if very different, tact to deal with the present economic situation. If you really think folks in the 80s and 90s all played fair and everyone benefited from it, you should watch movies like Wall Street and Trading Places. We didn't all live the lives of the Ghostbusters. Ok, most of us didn't live the lives of Charlie Sheen or Michael Douglas either, but there were an awful lot of movies in the 80s along those lines because we were all aware that there were folks on Wall Street who were that way and there were CEOs and Directors who had golden parachutes of incredible proportions because they were in fact far more worried about their own bonuses than about even their own company's welfare, let alone that of the nation. Frankly, even the idea of shipping jobs overseas had already been a problem for this country back then. This isn't about nostalgia anywhere nearly as much as you're thinking it is.

       
I am not saying greed was absent, what i am saying is that it was not the driving force of companies to make a profit. That is the difference between now and the 80's, today it is profits at any cost and no loyalty to anything other than bonuses for those CEO's and Directors who sell your job out to someone in China, Mexico or some other 3rd world South American nation. In the 80's and 90's there was a trickle down, this is no longer the case however.

       
Edited by The_Fury on Jan 25, 2012 7:21 pm
The_Fury said:

Reaganomics worked in the 80's and 90's because people were not greedy, they played fair and everyone across society benefited from it.

Comedy gold right there folks. Greed has been a part of the human condition for as long as humans have existed. It will continue to be so until the end of time.

It has always been and will always remain a corporation's responsibility to seek higher and higher profits. In fact, there are even laws on the books that say publicly traded companies MUST seek greater and greater profits for their shareholders. The methods for continuing this meteoric rise have changed, but only because there's no other way to do it when you have to deal with the horror of unionized labor.

       
The methods for continuing this meteoric rise have changed, but only because there's no other way to do it when you have to deal with the horror of unionized labor.


So where are your profits going to come from when you have no jobs left to export to China? Let alone looking at the greater social impacts and the effect these things have on the economy and society at large.

       
Someone should have thought about that before passing insane laws requiring publicly traded companies to seek higher and higher profits above all else.

       
Oh come on Samson, thats a cop out and you know it. If there were laws forcing companies to be socially responsible and the like you would be moaning that there is some great socialist conspiracy to take over the nation. The fact is, that companies can choose to be morally responsible while making still making profits, but most don't because the CEO's and Directors want their big bonus checks and do not give a fuck what happens to you. So instead, they sell you out to China for a quick buck.

       
Edited by The_Fury on Jan 25, 2012 8:59 pm
Nope, it's actually brutally honest. Someone really should have thought about that before passing these stupid laws, because those laws don't have moral responsibility clauses in them. So once all our jobs have been outsourced to China, there's nothing left except for those companies themselves to pack up and move to China.

You don't have to worry about it though, unless your own government was equally stupid in passing laws of a similar nature.

       
Doesn't have to be China either, folks. Ever call tech support only to realize you're talking to someone completely untrained and unqualified in India? Same cause. I gather North Korea would offer even cheaper labor should the regime allow it. ;)

       
The key changes that I see with Reaganomics conditions versus today is that the rich are far more powerful and wealthier than they were during the 80's (Reaganomics had a hand in facilitating this) and the economy was a lot less globalized. As a result, during the 80s when the rich were given tax breaks and other assistance the money was reinvested into the community and the benefits of the tax cuts as a whole were felt more evenly across the community. Nowadays the rich are investing overseas, and the jobs are moving with that investment and the tax cuts benefit the rich far more than anyone else. The economic situation has changed a lot, even if people haven't.

Reaganomics worked because it took advantage of the conditions of the time, but those aren't the conditions of today, which is why a new approach is needed. (hmm...Obamanomics, Romneyomics, of Gingrichomics...which one do you guys reckon sound the best?).

Anyway, speaking of stupid laws, the Australian government did once have a law that if you owned forested land you had to 'improve' (i.e. clear) the land on a regular basis or they could take your land away from you. And of course, it didn't matter how useless the land was. It was overturned a couple of decades ago, but I suppose it is a nice example of some lunatic laws we've had down here.

       
Sorry about the delayed response, blame it on the new school semester amongst other bits of drama from real life. :shrug:

Anyway, to answer the one question you actually posed in all that, at the rate the primaries are going, I'm thinking it'll either be Newtonomics or Mittonomics this go 'round, we've already clearly had our fill of Sotonomics, unless the current national leader's spending ideas would be classed as Obamaniactics. ;)

       
Sotonomics? (Mittonomics certainly is better than Romneyomics though). Hasn't Obamanomics been 'either do nothing because no one can agree or make compromises that end up just making things worse' of late.

Anyway, I feel with you for the whole 'school disrupts online life', because I'm there right now too. Though the thing that ticks me off the most at the moment is 'three straight hours of maths every Thursday afternoon'. :sad: Also, random of interest to you, there's a girl from my school who's doing an exchange for six months in Texas. So when she gets back I may well be hearing a bit about life up in your neck of the world.

       
I find this Mitt Romney thing to be very perplexing. The evangelical vote is a damn big part of US politics especially in conservative circles, and yet, here you have a Mormon in the lead. Evangelicals consider Mormonism to be a cult, and yet, here they are, voting for him. Go figure.

       
What can I say? Though you're in the wrong post, the people of Florida always amaze and astound us during election season. The people of South Carolina had it right.

       
prettyfly said:

Also, random of interest to you, there's a girl from my school who's doing an exchange for six months in Texas. So when she gets back I may well be hearing a bit about life up in your neck of the world.

Hey, now that's pretty cool! You'll have to let us know what she says about the place once she comes back. Right now we're in a wet and cold spell, but even though we're at below freezing at night around here, we're still pretty convinced it's already spring and that we somehow entirely missed out on snow for the winter this year. :shrug:

Samson said:

the people of Florida always amaze and astound us during election season.

You can say that again! At least the amaze aspect anyway.. ;) All too often, especially in the last few major elections, confound would be more apt than astound. :lol:

       
<< prev 1 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31