Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
The US GOP Primary Results/Prediction thread [UPDATE: Santorum suspends campaign]

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 22 NEXT
 

Stagnant:
-snip-

There is no need for me to respond to any of this, I explained everything and you just made partisan quibs at me. You also said a bunch of things that were either misleading at best or outright lies at worst. If you have anything useful to say in response to my explanation of Conservative values I will be happy to respond. Engaging in a game of "nuh-uh" with you is a waste of time as you are clearly set in your views and no amount of fact is going to pull you away from the fiction you embrace. That and I am tired and its late, good night.

Seekster:

Stagnant:
-snip-

There is no need for me to respond to any of this, I explained everything and you just made partisan quibs at me. You also said a bunch of things that were either misleading at best or outright lies at worst. If you have anything useful to say in response to my explanation of Conservative values I will be happy to respond. Engaging in a game of "nuh-uh" with you is a waste of time as you are clearly set in your views and no amount of fact is going to pull you away from the fiction you embrace. That and I am tired and its late, good night.

Beyond the fact that your so-called conservative values in terms of financial policy are either universal western values (and that calling them "conservative" as such is ridiculously disingenuous) or agreeable but impossible to implement... Jeez, you know, you'd think that would matter.

Seekster, there's this great saying: "Words mean things". Conservative Values is a term that carries a lot of baggage with it, among other things the one that anything with the form "<Group X> Values" carries with it. That baggage is as follows: "People not of <Group X> do not carry this value". As such, it's completely ridiculous to call the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness a "conservative value" because it tries very, very hard to ignore all of the baggage the term carries with it in a way that most people cannot follow. It is severely implied in saying that that people who are not conservative do not hold these values. Which is why we apply the values to the largest group possible: in this case, they are not Conservative Values, they are Western Values.

You explained everything, and I responded with agreement or fact-based disagreement. If that's not what you wanted... too bad.

BOOM headshot65:

And I dont see me having Aspergers as a disadvantage. I dont care if people believe me or not. I am who I am BECAUSE of my aspergers. You say it makes life hell.

Actually, I didn't.

You call it a curse.

Actually, I didn't.

If you dont like it, tough.

Actually, I don't care.

You're just plain wrong about Aspergers and IQ scales is the sum total of what I'm saying. You can leave the assumptions at home.

Stagnant:

Seekster:

Stagnant:
-snip-

There is no need for me to respond to any of this, I explained everything and you just made partisan quibs at me. You also said a bunch of things that were either misleading at best or outright lies at worst. If you have anything useful to say in response to my explanation of Conservative values I will be happy to respond. Engaging in a game of "nuh-uh" with you is a waste of time as you are clearly set in your views and no amount of fact is going to pull you away from the fiction you embrace. That and I am tired and its late, good night.

Beyond the fact that your so-called conservative values in terms of financial policy are either universal western values (and that calling them "conservative" as such is ridiculously disingenuous) or agreeable but impossible to implement... Jeez, you know, you'd think that would matter.

Seekster, there's this great saying: "Words mean things". Conservative Values is a term that carries a lot of baggage with it, among other things the one that anything with the form "<Group X> Values" carries with it. That baggage is as follows: "People not of <Group X> do not carry this value". As such, it's completely ridiculous to call the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness a "conservative value" because it tries very, very hard to ignore all of the baggage the term carries with it in a way that most people cannot follow. It is severely implied in saying that that people who are not conservative do not hold these values. Which is why we apply the values to the largest group possible: in this case, they are not Conservative Values, they are Western Values.

You explained everything, and I responded with agreement or fact-based disagreement. If that's not what you wanted... too bad.

What is annoying is that you are finding a reason to get offended almost. Of course just because something is a Conservative value does not mean it can't be values also held by other groups. To even think such a thing is ridiculous. Don't talk to me about what you infer from that because thats on you.

Seekster:
What is annoying is that you are finding a reason to get offended almost. Of course just because something is a Conservative value does not mean it can't be values also held by other groups. To even think such a thing is ridiculous. Don't talk to me about what you infer from that because thats on you.

Caring about intelligence is a white value.

Seekster:
What is annoying is that you are finding a reason to get offended almost. Of course just because something is a Conservative value does not mean it can't be values also held by other groups. To even think such a thing is ridiculous. Don't talk to me about what you infer from that because thats on you.

Intellectual honesty is a liberal value.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
What is annoying is that you are finding a reason to get offended almost. Of course just because something is a Conservative value does not mean it can't be values also held by other groups. To even think such a thing is ridiculous. Don't talk to me about what you infer from that because thats on you.

Caring about intelligence is a white value.

Yes but not just a white value.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
What is annoying is that you are finding a reason to get offended almost. Of course just because something is a Conservative value does not mean it can't be values also held by other groups. To even think such a thing is ridiculous. Don't talk to me about what you infer from that because thats on you.

Intellectual honesty is a liberal value.

I would dispute that but I am sure you would dispute my assertion that Intellectual honesty is a Conservative value (too).

Seekster:
I would dispute that but I am sure you would dispute my assertion that Intellectual honesty is a Conservative value (too).

Of course you would. The claim is idiotic and intentionally misleading.

So instead of trying to CYA by saying "it's a conservative value, but it's a liberal value too" how about you just admit that your original statment was stupid and misleading and move on with your life. Y'know, actually act with the integrity and honesty you so often claim to value.

Agema:

BOOM headshot65:

And I dont see me having Aspergers as a disadvantage. I dont care if people believe me or not. I am who I am BECAUSE of my aspergers. You say it makes life hell.

Actually, I didn't.

You call it a curse.

Actually, I didn't.

If you dont like it, tough.

Actually, I don't care.

You're just plain wrong about Aspergers and IQ scales is the sum total of what I'm saying. You can leave the assumptions at home.

Those quotes was more directed at others than you. It just got lumped in there.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
I would dispute that but I am sure you would dispute my assertion that Intellectual honesty is a Conservative value (too).

Of course you would. The claim is idiotic and intentionally misleading.

So instead of trying to CYA by saying "it's a conservative value, but it's a liberal value too" how about you just admit that your original statment was stupid and misleading and move on with your life. Y'know, actually act with the integrity and honesty you so often claim to value.

I am perfectly capable of moving on with my life while responding to entertaining posts on this forum.

I don't think I am done here yet. You know how we say that valuing life is a Christian value? It is but obviously it isnt JUST a Christian value. You know how we say freedom is an American value? It is but its not JUST an American value. What has to be wrong with your perception of the world when you would think that just because one group values something that no other group values it?

Seekster:
You know how we say that valuing life is a Christian value? It is but obviously it isnt JUST a Christian value. You know how we say freedom is an American value? It is but its not JUST an American value. What has to be wrong with your perception of the world when you would think that just because one group values something that no other group values it?

You know how when people say those things they are either implicitly or explicitly setting up a dichotomy between the group they claim holds a value and "the other" that does not, using it as a rhetorical trick to score points with members of said group?

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
You know how we say that valuing life is a Christian value? It is but obviously it isnt JUST a Christian value. You know how we say freedom is an American value? It is but its not JUST an American value. What has to be wrong with your perception of the world when you would think that just because one group values something that no other group values it?

You know how when people say those things they are either implicitly or explicitly setting up a dichotomy between the group they claim holds a value and "the other" that does not, using it as a rhetorical trick to score points with members of said group?

Well that may be how you do things but I don't do things like that and would criticize those who do try and employ that kind of language as a rhetorical trick.

Seekster:
Well that may be how you do things but I don't do things like that and would criticize those who do try and employ that kind of language as a rhetorical trick.

OH WOW, THAT'S A LAUGH.

Edit: Holy shit, did you actually just SAY that?

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
Well that may be how you do things but I don't do things like that and would criticize those who do try and employ that kind of language as a rhetorical trick.

OH WOW, THAT'S A LAUGH.

Edit: Holy shit, did you actually just SAY that?

Technically I typed it but I still meant it.

Seekster:

Stagnant:

Seekster:
What is annoying is that you are finding a reason to get offended almost. Of course just because something is a Conservative value does not mean it can't be values also held by other groups. To even think such a thing is ridiculous. Don't talk to me about what you infer from that because thats on you.

Caring about intelligence is a white value.

Yes but not just a white value.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
What is annoying is that you are finding a reason to get offended almost. Of course just because something is a Conservative value does not mean it can't be values also held by other groups. To even think such a thing is ridiculous. Don't talk to me about what you infer from that because thats on you.

Intellectual honesty is a liberal value.

I would dispute that but I am sure you would dispute my assertion that Intellectual honesty is a Conservative value (too).

You don't see the bitter irony in seeing it necessary to correct us? On one hand, you're going right ahead and saying that it doesn't imply that it belongs solely to the group (or, for the matter, doesn't imply to opposing groups), and on the other, you feel the need to point out that it doesn't simply belong to those groups when we use it in a similar context.

If I threw out a statement like "Caring about intelligence is a white value" free from context, it would take an idiot not to see the blatant race-baiting and personal baggage involved - how heavily it implies that ONLY white people care about intelligence, and more specifically that, say, black people don't.

Seekster:
Well that may be how you do things but I don't do things like that and would criticize those who do try and employ that kind of language as a rhetorical trick.

Then I figure that I should mention that Gingrich just did this... then turned around and directly stated what is merely implied by it normally in his speech. Also, king of missing the point?

Look, if it's not your implication, then that's great, but you're still going to be confusing people. You may not see or imply the baggage... Almost everyone else does. As such, claiming "X is a conservative value", even if you personally do not hold the inherent implications to be accurate, is misleading. There's a reason we call those things western values. There's a reason we call value of human life a human value, rather than a western value (as the latter would imply that non-westernized countries do not value human lives). It's not that hard to grasp, but it's one of those things that you need to watch out for when trying to communicate with others.

Stagnant:

Seekster:

Stagnant:

Caring about intelligence is a white value.

Yes but not just a white value.

See Spot Run:

Intellectual honesty is a liberal value.

I would dispute that but I am sure you would dispute my assertion that Intellectual honesty is a Conservative value (too).

You don't see the bitter irony in seeing it necessary to correct us? On one hand, you're going right ahead and saying that it doesn't imply that it belongs solely to the group (or, for the matter, doesn't imply to opposing groups), and on the other, you feel the need to point out that it doesn't simply belong to those groups when we use it in a similar context.

If I threw out a statement like "Caring about intelligence is a white value" free from context, it would take an idiot not to see the blatant race-baiting and personal baggage involved - how heavily it implies that ONLY white people care about intelligence, and more specifically that, say, black people don't.

Seekster:
Well that may be how you do things but I don't do things like that and would criticize those who do try and employ that kind of language as a rhetorical trick.

Then I figure that I should mention that Gingrich just did this... then turned around and directly stated what is merely implied by it normally in his speech. Also, king of missing the point?

Look, if it's not your implication, then that's great, but you're still going to be confusing people. You may not see or imply the baggage... Almost everyone else does. As such, claiming "X is a conservative value", even if you personally do not hold the inherent implications to be accurate, is misleading. There's a reason we call those things western values. There's a reason we call value of human life a human value, rather than a western value (as the latter would imply that non-westernized countries do not value human lives). It's not that hard to grasp, but it's one of those things that you need to watch out for when trying to communicate with others.

Normally I wouldnt correct you but I know what you are trying to do and I want to point out that I am consistent in my views.

I don't think it implies any of that.

Again, I have a lot to criticize Gingrich about.

Apparently, though I find the concept that just because one group hold a value other groups can't also to be odd.

Seekster:
Apparently, though I find the concept that just because one group hold a value other groups can't also to be odd.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that phrasing a statement of a shared value in such a way as to set up a dichotomy between the values [group X] holds and the values of ["the other"] is intellectually dishonest and deceptive.

See Spot Run:

Seekster:
Apparently, though I find the concept that just because one group hold a value other groups can't also to be odd.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that phrasing a statement of a shared value in such a way as to set up a dichotomy between the values [group X] holds and the values of ["the other"] is intellectually dishonest and deceptive.

Well thats not how I see it and its not what I meant. If you took it that way then thats on you but if it upsets you that much I will try and refrain from talking in that way in the interest of getting back on topic.

Seekster:
If you took it that way then thats on you

No it isn't, because it's directly implied by the words you used.

BOOM headshot65:

Agema:

BOOM headshot65:

And I dont see me having Aspergers as a disadvantage. I dont care if people believe me or not. I am who I am BECAUSE of my aspergers. You say it makes life hell.

Actually, I didn't.

You call it a curse.

Actually, I didn't.

If you dont like it, tough.

Actually, I don't care.

You're just plain wrong about Aspergers and IQ scales is the sum total of what I'm saying. You can leave the assumptions at home.

Those quotes was more directed at others than you. It just got lumped in there.

I think those were aimed at me, since I'm the one who called it a curse. I don't know what glorious world you live in where life was normal for you with Asperger's (assuming you have it), but for the vast majority of people I've met at seminars for dealing with it, life has been miserable.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

I think those were aimed at me, since I'm the one who called it a curse. I don't know what glorious world you live in where life was normal for you with Asperger's (assuming you have it), but for the vast majority of people I've met at seminars for dealing with it, life has been miserable.

I live in an area with a very dedicated community help system for people with mental disabilies, one of the best in the state I have been told. First, my parents caught it when I was in 3rd grade and got me into therapy REALLY quick (because I was being bullied to the point of becoming physically ill) and put me into "resource" classes, where teachers would help me though things I didnt understand. And now, I am helping mentor other students with Autism, Asperger, Mental Retardation, the whole 9-yards though a program at my school called 'Interpersonal Skills.' And isnt that what most of the famous people who had it, like Temple Grandin, say? That it was the help of didcated people who helped them overcome?

I love how half of this topic has derailed into Aspergers arguments while the other half derailed on "Seekster is wrong, let's flame him!".

BOOM headshot65:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

I think those were aimed at me, since I'm the one who called it a curse. I don't know what glorious world you live in where life was normal for you with Asperger's (assuming you have it), but for the vast majority of people I've met at seminars for dealing with it, life has been miserable.

I live in an area with a very dedicated community help system for people with mental disabilies, one of the best in the state I have been told. First, my parents caught it when I was in 3rd grade and got me into therapy REALLY quick (because I was being bullied to the point of becoming physically ill) and put me into "resource" classes, where teachers would help me though things I didnt understand. And now, I am helping mentor other students with Autism, Asperger, Mental Retardation, the whole 9-yards though a program at my school called 'Interpersonal Skills.' And isnt that what most of the famous people who had it, like Temple Grandin, say? That it was the help of didcated people who helped them overcome?

A lot of people aren't that lucky. Worse, lots of people who do have it don't get help because people think they're just saying that to excuse their misogynistic ways. I didn't get diagnosed fully till I was 17, since the accepted medical definition for it split in 1998 from Autism.

You might not have a problem with it. I do. I want it gone. A blind man may have super powered hearing and touch senses, but I bet he would trade them to see in a heartbeat.

recruit00:
I love how half of this topic has derailed into Aspergers arguments while the other half derailed on "Seekster is wrong, let's flame him!".

Yeah, this thread has gone way off topic while we wait for the Florida primaries.

recruit00:
I love how half of this topic has derailed into Aspergers arguments while the other half derailed on "Seekster is wrong, let's flame him!".

I'd chastise them all had it not been for the fact that I need this thread to last at least until next Tuesday and that I gain a benefit of getting ever closer to a badge as they flame each other.

On another note: The Washington Post has put up the tax return forms for Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, as well as Gingrich's Freddie Mac Contract. If there's any US tax attorneys looking at this thread, have a go.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

recruit00:
I love how half of this topic has derailed into Aspergers arguments while the other half derailed on "Seekster is wrong, let's flame him!".

Yeah, this thread has gone way off topic while we wait for the Florida primaries.

Ay, but when Florida rolls around.....guess it all falls on who wins.

The Gentleman:

recruit00:
I love how half of this topic has derailed into Aspergers arguments while the other half derailed on "Seekster is wrong, let's flame him!".

I'd chastise them all had it not been for the fact that I need this thread to last at least until next Tuesday and that I gain a benefit of getting ever closer to a badge as they flame each other.

On another note: The Washington Post has put up the tax return forms for Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, as well as Gingrich's Freddie Mac Contract. If there's any US tax attorneys looking at this thread, have a go.

Well as I'm home now (Awesome trip, went very well) and may as well help get this back on topic while I unpack a bit I can say that Romney's effective tax rate was 13.9% of his GAI (gross adjusted income) of $21 mil. His largest charitable deductible was donations to the Mormon church and was his largest deductible overall (pretty much the same amount that he paid in taxes).
How this compares to most American's is that if you exclude Payroll taxes and focus entirely on federal income tax only (This is the most favourable way to look at it for Romney but not very fair to the majority of Americans and so what he'll be focusing on) after earnings it's roughly in line with someone earning 250k-500k using all available methods of tax deduction.

An easy way of finding out how roughly what your effective tax rate would be to compare it to Mitten's take your own 1040 and divide line 60 by line 37. This gives you your federal income tax only. To find out how much you were really taxed you need add roughly 9% (i.e you found you had 9% so now you're at 18%) for Social security if you earned less than $106,000 then your percentage of income in state taxes. These taxes don't change Romney's total tax percentage very much because he earn's so much and these taxes are usually set a a maximum level or are fixed rates which he outstrips handily as he earns hundreds of times the maximum/the the of earnings aren't taxed at the state level.

Will look into the Swiss and Cayman bank accounts later for funsies along with Gingrich's things.

PPP polling is particularly great. Newt likely to win Florida? This race is going to go on forever!

edit: One awesome small statistic. Romney earned more in after tax income each day in 2010 than the median household did in the entire year.

Watched the US President's National Address and noticed several major swipes at comments made by Mitt Romney, including Romney's claims that dissenters were envious and that the housing market needed to bottom out.

I watched Obama's State of the Union address and I have to say it was one of his better speeches. I hope he really means most of the things he said, ah well we shall see. I will give the man some more slack just because some of the things in his speech didnt sound so bad. Lets see what he does now.

Mitch Daniels really impressed me with his response, that man is going to be a real asset for the Republican Party.

BOOM headshot65:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

recruit00:
I love how half of this topic has derailed into Aspergers arguments while the other half derailed on "Seekster is wrong, let's flame him!".

Yeah, this thread has gone way off topic while we wait for the Florida primaries.

Ay, but when Florida rolls around.....guess it all falls on who wins.

Not necessarily, after Florida the entire month of February is filled with primaries in western and midwestern states which Newt should have any advantage in. Still if Romney doesnt do better in Florida than he did in South Carolina he will be in trouble.

Well, well, well. Things just got interesting. Gingrich is just 1 delegate behind Mitt, and the polls from Florida do not look so good for Mitt. I would have put good money on Mitt, but now, I am not so sure. Consider my interest piqued.

Seekster:

Still if Romney doesnt do better in Florida than he did in South Carolina he will be in trouble.

And by extension means we could ALL (conservatives) be in trouble, because while I am not a big fan of Romneys policies, I can forsee anyone BUT him getting ripped to shreddes in November.

BreakfastMan:
Well, well, well. Things just got interesting. Gingrich is just 1 delegate behind Mitt, and the polls from Florida do not look so good for Mitt. I would have put good money on Mitt, but now, I am not so sure. Consider my interest piqued.

For what its worth I did see a poll that just came out today showing Mitt with a small edge over Gingrich in Florida so the race is back and forth. Still it is interesting enough that I think I will try and watch the debate on Thursday since the debates were basically what won Newt the South Carolina Primary. Newt did not do so well in the last debate (he even had a long akward pause while trying to answer an attack from Romney) but the last debate was not viewed widely and was kind of dull for most of the night so it wont matter as much as the CNN debate on Thursday.

BOOM headshot65:

Seekster:

Still if Romney doesnt do better in Florida than he did in South Carolina he will be in trouble.

And by extension means we could ALL (conservatives) be in trouble, because while I am not a big fan of Romneys policies, I can forsee anyone BUT him getting ripped to shreddes in November.

Yes I agree. While I believe Newt would probably tear Obama apart on a debate stage, it wouldnt be enough to overcome his unlikability and if Newt is the nominee the election will be about Newt and not about Obama. Gingrich is one of the few people in politics whose arrogance exceeds that of Obama.

I am not a huge fan of all of Romney's policies but as a Conservative I realize that we cant keep getting caught up looking for the next Reagan (either Reagan the man or Reagan the ideal). Romney is probably the healthiest candidate for the Republican party because he could pull them away from the far right just enough to put them in a strong position where they would be attractive to the majority of Americans but not so far to the middle where they would abandon the base like they tried to do after 2008. Plus I think Romney would just be a damn good President.

Seekster:
I watched Obama's State of the Union address and I have to say it was one of his better speeches. I hope he really means most of the things he said, ah well we shall see. I will give the man some more slack just because some of the things in his speech didnt sound so bad. Lets see what he does now.

Mitch Daniels really impressed me with his response, that man is going to be a real asset for the Republican Party.

BOOM headshot65:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Yeah, this thread has gone way off topic while we wait for the Florida primaries.

Ay, but when Florida rolls around.....guess it all falls on who wins.

Not necessarily, after Florida the entire month of February is filled with primaries in western and midwestern states which Newt should have any advantage in. Still if Romney doesnt do better in Florida than he did in South Carolina he will be in trouble.

Also, Florida is winner-take-all, has a closed primary, and halved delegates for violating party rules. Romney appears to be leading in the Hispanic demographic by 15%. Given that Hispanics make up 10% of the GOP electorate, it's unclear whether that is substantial enough to turn the race in his favor. RCP Average still places Gingrich in the lead.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:
I watched Obama's State of the Union address and I have to say it was one of his better speeches. I hope he really means most of the things he said, ah well we shall see. I will give the man some more slack just because some of the things in his speech didnt sound so bad. Lets see what he does now.

Mitch Daniels really impressed me with his response, that man is going to be a real asset for the Republican Party.

BOOM headshot65:

Ay, but when Florida rolls around.....guess it all falls on who wins.

Not necessarily, after Florida the entire month of February is filled with primaries in western and midwestern states which Newt should have any advantage in. Still if Romney doesnt do better in Florida than he did in South Carolina he will be in trouble.

Also, Florida is winner-take-all, has a closed primary, and halved delegates for violating party rules. Romney appears to be leading in the Hispanic demographic by 15%. Given that Hispanics make up 10% of the GOP electorate, it's unclear whether that is substantial enough to turn the race in his favor. RCP Average still places Gingrich in the lead.

In a race this volatile the polls can change by a notable amount from day to day and honestly until after Thursday they arent going to count for much.

I did not know Florida was winner-take-all, do you have a link that says for sure it will be winner take all because the stories I have seen are less clear?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/santorum-hopes-florida-delegates-not-winner-take-all/

"Currently, the winner of the Jan. 31 Florida primaries is slated to receive all of the state's 50 delegates. But because Florida moved its primary up against the wishes of the party, the state may ultimately be made to dole out its delegates proportionally to candidates in the order they place here."

Seekster:

The Gentleman:

Seekster:
I watched Obama's State of the Union address and I have to say it was one of his better speeches. I hope he really means most of the things he said, ah well we shall see. I will give the man some more slack just because some of the things in his speech didnt sound so bad. Lets see what he does now.

Mitch Daniels really impressed me with his response, that man is going to be a real asset for the Republican Party.

Not necessarily, after Florida the entire month of February is filled with primaries in western and midwestern states which Newt should have any advantage in. Still if Romney doesnt do better in Florida than he did in South Carolina he will be in trouble.

Also, Florida is winner-take-all, has a closed primary, and halved delegates for violating party rules. Romney appears to be leading in the Hispanic demographic by 15%. Given that Hispanics make up 10% of the GOP electorate, it's unclear whether that is substantial enough to turn the race in his favor. RCP Average still places Gingrich in the lead.

In a race this volatile the polls can change by a notable amount from day to day and honestly until after Thursday they arent going to count for much.

I did not know Florida was winner-take-all, do you have a link that says for sure it will be winner take all because the stories I have seen are less clear?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/santorum-hopes-florida-delegates-not-winner-take-all/

"Currently, the winner of the Jan. 31 Florida primaries is slated to receive all of the state's 50 delegates. But because Florida moved its primary up against the wishes of the party, the state may ultimately be made to dole out its delegates proportionally to candidates in the order they place here."

Washington Post has a breakdown of primary contests. The problem is that they aren't completely accurate. South Carolina, for example, is listed as winner-take-all, but the actual way they are delegated is based on who won the state legislature district, not the state.

I'm also not a fan of how they place non-elected delegates prior to the contests, which inflates the lead by Romney significantly.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked