2012 Wisconsin, Maryland, and DC Primaries

Are we there yet mommy? No, seriously, it's April and we shouldn't still be asking this question, right? While it looks good on paper for Romney tonight, it ain't over by a long shot. Not with several southern states still to come in the next few weeks. Rick Santorum isn't out of this yet, and he's still dogging Romney's heels closely enough to deny him the needed delegates to put an end to this circus. It's as much of a circus as the Democrats had going in 2008. Maybe even more so. Nothing we can do about that though, so how about some nice hot results!

Washington DC - 100% precincts (like, because there's just one anyway) reporting

Mitt Romney - 70% (3,122 votes, 18 delegates)
Ron Paul - 12% (535 votes)
Newt Gingrich - 11% (477 votes)
Rick Santorum - Not on the ballot in DC.

Maryland - 80% precincts reporting

Mitt Romney - 49% (116,922 votes, 37 delegates)
Rick Santorum - 29% (68,848 votes)
Newt Gingrich - 11% (25,967 votes)
Ron Paul - 10% (22,649 votes)

Wisconsin - 100% precincts reporting

Mitt Romney - 43% (305,740 votes, 30 delegates)
Rick Santorum - 38% (270,686 votes, 6 delegates)
Ron Paul - 12% (83,969 votes)
Newt Gingrich - 6% (43,893 votes)

Delegate Totals to Date

Mitt Romney: 655 delegates.
Rick Santorum: 278 delegates.
Newt Gingrich: 135 delegates.
Ron Paul: 51 delegates.

1,144 required to win.

One thing is clear. The left wing media smear campaign against Newt Gingrich has done its damage. That can't be mor apparent than these results where he can't even score better than Ron Paul of all people.
.........................
RIP United States of America

July 1776 - November 2012.

       
« Of Marx and Rocks
Feminism Run Amok »

Posted on Apr 3, 2012 11:29 pm by Samson in: | 50 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
"The left wing mediaNewt Gingrich smear campaign against Newt Gingrich has done its damage."

I fixed it for you.

In other news, I believe I speak for all Leporine-Americans when I say that this Herman Cain ad would disqualify him for office, had he not already dropped out.

Re: Democrats in 2008, no matter what anyone may have thought of the candidates in question, at least the long and drawn out circus had the benefit of two genuinely ground-breaking, interesting, and maybe even inspiring candidates. You guys have...Mitt Romney. It's kind of tragic.

       
No, I was pretty well serious when I said the left wing media smear campaign did its damage. You've bought it hook line and sinker.

Dude. That rabbit ad was awesome. You're on crack if you think that wouldn't have driven the point home! You're just mad because they didn't shoot a lizard instead :)

As for that last part about ground-breaking, interesting, and inspiring candidates? I'm going to assume you're trolling me now because there's no way you could possibly be serious about Obama or Hillary being even remotely that. It was genuinely tragic to watch you guys whittle the field down to a pair of Marxist thugs the way you did, leaving yourselves no way out. It was only through the complete ineptness of John McCain that it ended up working for you anyway.

I'm not real happy with Mitt Romney either, but he's a far better candidate than McCain was, and it's too bad he didn't win in 2008 because he'd have crushed Obama in the debates. Unfortunately it seems the younger generation needed their historical reminder on why it's not cool to let Democrats run the country.

       
Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #3 Apr 4, 2012 6:22 am
What is your definition of marxist?

       
Just about anybody to the left of Grover Norquist.

And no, not trolling. I mean, you don't have to like or agree with either Clinton or Obama, but the facts remain that the chance for either the first female president or the first black president is more ground-breaking than another old white dude; they're interesting because of that among other things; no matter how you look at it, a lot of Americans were inspired by these people.

Whereas there's just not a lot of vast enthusiasm for Romney that I can tell, so much as there's a lot of "Well, I guess he's our best shot at winning? Hopefully? Maybe?"

As to Gingrich, you act like me and a ton of other people haven't listened to the dude talk for the past 20 years. Forget the reporting, I can come up with reasons not to vote for him just based on words that have come out of his own mouth.

...you rabbit hater. :P

       
What is your definition of marxist?

He's in office right now, and his Secretary of State fits the bill too. Both of them support policies built around redistribution of wealth not belonging to either of them, which fits every known definition of Marxism I've encountered.

@Dwip: No. A lot of Americans were not inspired by either of them. In fact, nearly everyone I talked to was disgusted to their core that you guys would choose two completely worthless people to represent you through the primaries. It was just dumb luck that we chose someone who was actively MORE worthless than those two. So much so that most conservatives ended up staying home, producing the illusion of a landslide victory for Obama despite him only bringing down 54% of the popular vote.

Fortunately, as I read the news in several places, even the Democratic base are angry with Obama and it's looking very much like a lot of libs are going to be playing the stay at home card this year. Which I will be celebrating with gleeful abandon come November. At the same time, conservatives have realized their foolishness and will NOT be staying home, even if that means backing Romney who is a RINO.

       
Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #6 Apr 5, 2012 1:32 am
I thought Bill Clinton was the first "Black" President, and that Barack Obama was just "black enough" to get the nomination. I look at President Obama and I don't see a black man, I see the President. The man is as white as I am, in fact we both get our skin tone from our fathers side. I've been hearing from the left for years about how we should have a color blind society, and I totally agree, but it's the left who won't actually do it.

The problem I have with Mitt Romney is not so much that he is a RINO (though I do have issues with that) it's that he's wishy washy. There are many issues that are important to me and he either takes no real side or he has taken both sides. I don't see a true leader in Romney, I see a salesman trying to close a deal. I didn't like John McCain but I told myself "At least it's not Romney," but now it's "At least it's not... Oh Crap!"

       
*sigh*

This is your rabbit. This is your rabbit trying really hard to not start spewing profanity and walkinghopping away. Any questions?

You don't seem to get what I'm trying to say here, and insofar as I trying very hard to avoid having you make pointless and completely off topic bitterly partisan attacks for no reason, I guess I need to break this down a bit more, because apparently I just don't know how to form words anymore or something.

The contest between McCain and Obama has precisely what to do with the contest between Clinton and Obama? Which is to say, what's with the random pointless partisan attack doggery here? I should think it completely obvious that, when talking about Democrats who were enthusiastic about Clinton/Obama, nobody gives a shit how non-enthusiastic McCain voters are about Obama in an entirely different election. Whereas, you know, voter turnout during the Democratic primaries in 2008 was literally the most it had ever been by several percentage points with record high turnout for several demographics, so somebody somewhere was probably excited about something, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't the new Guns n' Roses album.

This being the case, why are you randomly conflating the two contests? The general election of 2008 is completely irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

       
Edited by Dwip on Apr 5, 2012 2:51 am
Oh, I get what you're trying to say here. I'm just not buying what you're selling. I don't believe one bit that either of the two Democrat candidates in 2008 were inspiring, unique, or otherwise worthy of anything more than scorn for being the usual liberal hacks out to advanced the progressive agenda.

It has everything to do with the current situation, because you guys are running the same empty suit candidate by default while we're throwing up essentially the same set of barely occupied suits to challenge him. Except for one significant difference. You guys are angry as hell at your guy (well, maybe YOU aren't, but plenty of other are) and they're talking about sitting this one out because Obama hasn't been liberal enough for them. Surely you've heard the laughable claims about how he turned into Bush's 3rd term?

Someone, somewhere, was indeed excited about something, but as is typical of most libs, they don't have a clue what that was. They just know the media told them to be excited about something, so they were. It resulted in Jimmy Carter, take 2. The country has paid dearly for it, and the sleeping giant of conservatism has awakened.

       
I'm highly impressed how I cut out that second paragraph there, and apparently Sandbox decided to keep it anyway. Awesome.

And look, like I said, your personal opinion on the candidates in question isn't particularly germane to the fact that a whole lot of people did, in fact, find the two candidates in question to be everything I said they were, in 2008 during the primaries.

What people think of Obama in particular at the present time is, of course, an entirely different topic. That a non-zero number of them are dissatisfied is I think obvious. How dissatisfied is something we'll know come November.

       
Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #10 Apr 5, 2012 11:53 am
I liked Hillary... smart, very experienced, thoroughly well informed, decisive yet thoughtful, even ruthless when she has to be...

I have this theory: the qualities we tend to like in a leader, we do not tend to like in a woman.

       
Well it looks like you will have 2 choices, the Black Obama and the White Obama, one is republican the other is democrat, Samson's one eyed republican ideology aside, the colour of their skin and party affiliation is about all that separates them, policy wise, on about 90% of everything they are the same. Unless there is something diametrically different between the candidates, the election is nothing more than a popularity contest, and in that case the Black Obama will win.

I more than willing to wager $100 that Obama gets 4 more years and against Romney it will be a shoe in.

       
You know, every time I hear somebody make the "All the candidates/parties are the same!" argument, I am completely mystified by it. I have a sort of vague understanding that we look that way to everybody else in the world, but still.

       
Which is indeed funny, because when I look at Australia and Europe, I can't escape the feeling that they don't realize they're ALL lefties with very little ideological difference at all when compared to us.

@Fury: If there was mathematical certainty that Romney would beat Obama, I'd take your bet and double down on it. But since that's not the case and the chances of my being able to pay should the unlikely event of my loss occur, can't take the bet. Unless I end up getting a job between now and then.

       
There is actually quite a distinct ideological difference between the parties in Australia (my Dad, a self employed man who very much supports the Australian right, would say that 'The right wing motto is that you have to earn your income, the left wing motto is that you have to justify your income'). The issue is, you really have to live in Australia to pick it up. For instance, there is a very obvious difference between how both parties perceive indigenous history, but hey, what's that to an American? The same sort of thing runs with issues in the business community; when there was a workplace dispute between QANTAS and its employee's, the libs came out and supported QANTAS and labor supported the workers.

Of course, if you're as right wing as Samson is, well, its not really going to make much difference though.

       
I seem to recall having said several times that in America, there's a huge difference between what both parties stand for and you guys down there claiming it's all hogwash and everyone is right wing lunatics. Except you just described what is essentially the same difference between our Republicans and Democrats. Dems tend to side with unions (labor) and Republicans tend to side with the productive people (Qantas).

To me, the reason your guys all sound like clones of each other is because they both support massive government spending on social programs and oppressive taxation to pay for it. Dems here support the same, but Republicans don't. So I'd have to say that we have a much larger ideological spread than you guys do.

       
Republicans who aren't Mitt Romney, anyway. :P

       
Oh, I dunno, even Mitt Romney's ideology differs enough that you can't call him an outright liberal. I think so long as he repeals Obamacare he'll have so much political capital he could declare war on Canada and get away with it.

Also, blast from the past, you'll never guess who I ran into in a comment thread over at Ars Technica :P

       
*raises eyebrow*

       
We all remember Kris Craig, yes? Seems he took exception to me balking at the notion that stopping piracy is censorship of free speech. He trotted out all the usual justification arguments for why it's not stealing and all that. Most likely because he's a known software pirate.

       
Remind me.

       
Oh lord. Where to begin.

This guy.

       
Oh yeah. Him. Right. I had managed to block all of that. Oi.

       
Edited by Dwip on Apr 6, 2012 10:47 pm
I'd forgotten about all that too until he showed up out of nowhere and made it obvious who he was.

Also, in 8 years time, not a damn thing about TMC has changed.

       
Edited by Samson on Apr 6, 2012 10:53 pm
Dwip said:

Republicans who aren't Mitt Romney, anyway. :P


Samson said:

Oh, I dunno, even Mitt Romney's ideology differs enough that you can't call him an outright liberal. I think so long as he repeals Obamacare


But it looks like the courts are going to beat him to it, so even that it not going to help him all that much. And its not so much that he is not different, its that he is not different enough. For the candidate to stand out there needs to be black and white differences, Dems and Reps are currently just different shades of grey. And when its a choice between same and same, the choice for voters is who is most popular.

And this is the problem as i see it with 2 party politics, they both end up in the middle ground, Obama Care is just such an example, A real left wing party would have said Gov Supported health care for all is a fundamental right of all citizens and we will find a way to pay for it with taxation. But instead, what you end up with is a mess that tries to be part Gov program and part free market enterprise. The right is no better in this regard either, with their own social programs and industry protection programs which end up being half free market half Gov program as well as non balanced budgets and huge deficits.

We are not all that different here in Aus either, the right can balance a budget and are fiscally more conservative then the conservatives, the only real difference is in where government spending should be spent and to what degree.

       
At least the primary results are starting to stabilize a bit towards a single candidate, even if it's probably too little too late to matter.

Regarding Sir Kris, I'm still following TMC's daily summary emails and I'd forgotten about that guy myself... but, no, things at TMC haven't changed enough to merit notce in far more than eight years.

As for the political dispute at hand, I'm inclined mainly to simply agree with Fury's last post, seems to sum it up reasonably enough for me.

       
<< prev 1, 2 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