By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - America's Super Tuesday Election

SamuelRSmith on 07 March 2012
Viper1 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Viper1 said:
Results are in: I hold so little hope for the American people after that fantastic display of voting idiocy.


Hong Kong is starting to look nicer and nicer as this election cycle goes by.


Ehh, not really. I know of quite a few immigrants from Hong Kong, and they agree that mainland China is playing an increasing role year-on-year in Hong Kong's affairs.


Perhaps, but given recent trends, imagine 25-30 years down the line.   Do you see the US or Hong Kong as being more free?  The US is regressing and HK is progressing (if with Chinese political influence).

Singapore isn't too bad either.  Though both have some work to do with social freedoms.

 

Let's find a way to mix HK with Amsterdam. 


I don't think the USA will continue down the same path for 25-30 years. The dollar collapse will happen within the next decade, and then the Government will be forced to live within the confines of the Constitution.

I also don't blame the voters: if you had been voting the same way for 40 years, would you like to admit you were wrong and vote for something completely different? Especially when all the institutions you trust - the media, the body politik - all tell you that the guy's a kook?

---

Super Tuesday thoughts:

Ron Paul may not have won the popular vote in North Dakota, Idaho, or Alaska, but he will almost certainly be picking up a majorityof the delegates. The same is true for Iowa, Maine, Washington, Colorado. He'll also "punch above his weight" in delegates for Nevada and Minnesota.

Frankly, I'm happy that Santorum won Oklahoma and Tennessee, last night. And that Gingrich won Georgia. Because it means Romney didn't win. Every delegate that Romney doesn't win is a delegate harder for him to reach the majority. Paul's best chances were always through a brokered convention - the game plan should be allowing the other candidates to prevent eachother from getting a majority, and to slowly amass a number of delegates. And that seems to be what the game plan is.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 07 March 2012
BasilZero said:

I'm not entirely in the loop of this, but this means the end of the preliminaries right?

After this we'll know who will be running in the election this november?

 

Edit: Who won, CNN keeps talking about different theories of how each one can be knocked out lol?


Nope.

Still plenty of state primaries to go through.  This is just usally considered the "King Maker" because of the vast number of states that voted today.  Ususally a deadlock is broke by now as the states swing more one way then the other.

 

Essentially all the states vote, then they hold a convention where they tally up who has enough electoral votes to be the candidate, and if it's none of them, the candidates negotiate with each other for policy changes and cabinent positions to see who gets to run for president.



SamuelRSmith on 07 March 2012
Kasz216 said:

Essentially all the states vote, then they hold a convention where they tally up who has enough electoral votes to be the candidate, and if it's none of them, the candidates negotiate with each other for policy changes and cabinent positions to see who gets to run for president.


Except, after the first round, the delegates are no longer bound, and can vote for anybody - even if that person isn't running. I wonder how many delegates that are bound for Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum, are actually Paul supporters?



Kasz216 on 07 March 2012
SamuelRSmith said:
Kasz216 said:

Essentially all the states vote, then they hold a convention where they tally up who has enough electoral votes to be the candidate, and if it's none of them, the candidates negotiate with each other for policy changes and cabinent positions to see who gets to run for president.


Except, after the first round, the delegates are no longer bound, and can vote for anybody - even if that person isn't running. I wonder how many delegates that are bound for Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum, are actually Paul supporters?

I wouldn't think many...  i'm pretty sure the candidates pick their own delegates.

That is... not counting the super delegates chosen by the establishment.  Something that would work agaisnt Paul.



SamuelRSmith on 07 March 2012
Kasz216 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Kasz216 said:

Essentially all the states vote, then they hold a convention where they tally up who has enough electoral votes to be the candidate, and if it's none of them, the candidates negotiate with each other for policy changes and cabinent positions to see who gets to run for president.


Except, after the first round, the delegates are no longer bound, and can vote for anybody - even if that person isn't running. I wonder how many delegates that are bound for Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum, are actually Paul supporters?

I wouldn't think many...  i'm pretty sure the candidates pick their own delegates.

That is... not counting the super delegates chosen by the establishment.  Something that would work agaisnt Paul.


Candidates may pick their own delegates (I'm not sure about this, I think it varies state by state), but they can only pick from those willing to volunteer. This has been part of the Paul strategy, getting as many Paul supporters to the convention as possible. Unbound delegates tend to go with the flow (Doug Weed joked that they vote for the guy who left a chocolate on their pillow in the hotel).

Super delegates will almost certainly favour Romney.

---

The only candidate I don't want to see in over Obama, is Santorum.  While Romney/Obama/Gingrich are all pretty similar, at least the Republicans are promising to end Obamacare, cut some taxes, repel some regulations, and have a favourable energy policy. Santorum seems to be a bigger Federalist than Obama, and his antiquated views are nothing short of scary.