South Carolina Primary thread:

[Cory]

Well, the polls in South Carolina open at 7 AM Saturday, and it seems like it'll be close.

Here are the latest numbers form Public Policy Polling:

Gingrich - 34%
Romney - 28%
Paul - 15%
Santorum - 14%
Perry - 5%

Keep in mind Perry dropped out and endorsed Newt today. So it could be even 39% for Newt, give or take margin of error of course.

It's looking like Newt has the 'big mo' going forward (I don't think the bitter ex-wife attacks will catch) and Santorum is fading as the Christian Right coalesces around Gingrich. If Newt wins here Santorum will be expected to drop out and endorse Gingrich, especially if he places 4th behind Paul. That unifies the thus-far divided conservative vote. Paul is looking like he will take third especially if Santorum continues to fade (which is likely).

If Romney wins here the nomination contest is virtually over. SC is the big chance for an anti-Romney candidate to triumph, it's the toughest electorate Romney's faced this season. If Mitt wins here other candidates spare Paul will have a hard time justifying the viability of their campaign. Paul would probably actually benefit from a Romney win here. It would define the contest as a two-man race between Romney and the insurgent Paul. Don't get me wrong Romney would win but Paul would get more exposure to his cause (which is what he's really in this for, anyway).

If Gingrich wins then he becomes the official anti-Romney of the Conservative base and Santorum will he pressed to drop out and endorse him. Paul doesn't get the two-man race he wants, and Newt gets a lot of money. This is obviously the worst outcome for Romney (I think he'd even prefer Paul win). Then it would go to Florida with a three-man race. If Romney wins there it wraps up the contest and he just has to deal with Paul as a protest vote and debate opponent (think like Huckabee stayed in in 2008). If Gingrich wins in Florida the race is back to square one with Newt as the newly-minted frontrunner.

This would set Newt up for Super-Tuesday because most of the states then are Southern and more conservative.

But my gut tells me that Romney is gonna be the nominee basically no matter what.

So Zoklet, what do you think will go down? Will Romney lock it up? Can Newt rise again? Can Santorum or Paul pull off an upset?

Also, feel free to discuss the race going forward beyond South Carolina.

[Built To Last]

Wow! I was unaware the polls showed Newt with a commanding lead. I was sure this was shoe-in for Romney and would wind down the race.

My gut still goes with Romney however.

I agree that the interview of Newt's 2nd wife will not harm his chances. Those who support him have come to terms with his marital problems.

I haven't heard much about Paul in the past few days. No news is bad news for a candidacy. While momentum is strong among his supporters, it hasn't moved into the mainstream as they would have hoped.

[Asheville]

I think Paul has a better chance of winning SC that Iowa. I'm surprised he placed third, but that's all in the game I guess. Newt Gingrich comes off as a sleazy career Washington establishment politician and an ass, and Romney comes off as a rich, job killing, greedy ass as well as a Mormon. His Mormon faith alone could kill his chances in SC. Have you ever been to South Carolina? It's so Christian and backwards, it'll make your head spin.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Asheville

Have you ever been to South Carolina? It's so Christian and backwards, it'll make your head spin.

Yeah I live in SC. And the second part of your statement is why I think Paul never really stood a chance at first or second. The reason people (especially the religious conservatives) are shifting to Newt isn't so much because they like him personally, but because they see him as the only chance to stop Romney.

[ZappaFan]

Missed the damn debate tonight.
Oh well, I usually watch em online anyway.
Im surprised Newt is doing this well. I don't support him, but his response to this was pretty damn good

Newt Gingrich ***RIPS*** into John King on the 1st question in tonites GOP debate. - YouTube

Newt Gingrich ***RIPS*** into John King on the 1st question in tonites GOP debate. - YouTube
Video: click to display

I think Romney kinna fucked himself over this time. In the last debate, he was evading questions like a mofo. Of course he usually does that, but I can't really recall any other time where he was this evasive.

Ron Paul did debate better here compared to the last one I feel. His current support standings arnt that great right now. His numbers would have been much higher if he invested more time in South Carolina. However, he has been in Congress tryin to put a stop to the NDAA

[Shrike]

I don't understand why you guys take seriously people named after a baseball glove and a lizard.

[iMagiNation]

I don't understand why you guys take anyone besides Ron Paul seriously.

[JeffreyH]

The witch turned that guy into a Newt, and he never got better.

[JeffreyH]

But yeah - the establishment is desperately trying to find an alternative to Romney so that they can define it as a 2-man race and get back to ignoring Ron Paul.

The truth is, Gingrich has 0 chance of becoming the next president. Zero. None.

Romney? It will be close, but he would still lose to Obama. The only votes he is going to get will be not the votes for him, but against Obama.

If the Republican party cared about a win here, Ron Paul is clearly the candidate they should back. I mean, everybody's trying so hard to dig up something nasty on him and they just can't do it. He doesn't evade questions, his policies are consistent with his actions, he is the pro-peace candidate, and such candidates nearly always win.

Of course, the name of the game is money, nobody gives a fuck. The major players are betting on both the Republicans and the Democrats, and the rest are betting on the candidate that would protect their special interest. Ron Paul isn't there to defend special interest, hence they are not interested.

However, Ron Paul has shown that he can win. Americans, talk to everybody you know, especially older people, and convince them to vote for Ron Paul. His message is contagious, it will not be difficult.

Don't lose your chance, the whole world is watching you.

[Built To Last]

Originally Posted by JeffreyH

I mean, everybody's trying so hard to dig up something nasty on him and they just can't do it.

Except that he's a racist...

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...t-newsletters/

[JeffreyH]

Originally Posted by Built To Last

Except that he's a racist...

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...t-newsletters/

Mr. Trololo original upload - YouTube

Mr. Trololo original upload - YouTube
Video: click to display

[ZappaFan]

Originally Posted by Built To Last

Except that he's a racist...

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...t-newsletters/

The story behind the Ron Paul newsletters - YouTube

The story behind the Ron Paul newsletters - YouTube
Video: click to display

Ron Paul's racist newsletters author's name revealed!! - YouTube

Ron Paul's racist newsletters author's name revealed!! - YouTube
Video: click to display

[Psych]

Ron Paul would pardon none violent drug offenders, thus freeing 90% of the nigger population. Why would he do that if he were racist?

[Built To Last]

^ The issue is not whether Ron Paul himself wrote the letters, but that he let his name be associated with them. Furthermore, in denying his connection to the racist content of a small number of newsletters, Paul doesn't disavow the racist content, but that he had any part in writing it.

And to top it all off, Paul states that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Built To Last

^ The issue is not whether Ron Paul himself wrote the letters, but that he let his name be associated with them. Furthermore, in denying his connection to the racist content of a small number of newsletters, Paul doesn't disavow the racist content, but that he had any part in writing it.

I thought the issue was whether or not he is racist. My mistake.

And to top it all off, Paul states that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

lol. You would not have voted for the civil rights act either, especially if you like your property rights.

Not voting for civil rights act =/= omg racist.

[Cory]

My Final Prediction:

-Newt
-Romney
-Paul
-Santorum

[Piles of Crack]

People need to just accept the fact that Romney will be the nominee. It sucks, yes, but the only thing that matters in politics is money.

[Built To Last]

Originally Posted by Psych

I thought the issue was whether or not he is racist. My mistake.

It is. Paul should denounce the racial content of the newsletters....but he doesn't, rather he ducks the subject claiming not to have written the particular newsletters. Again, the issue isn't that somebody, perhaps Paul, wrote racist newsletters, but that Paul let his name and reputation be a platform for the racist content.

What Paul finds unfortunate about these newsletters is not the racist content, but that he had his name and candidacy associated with it. Ironically, Paul is billed as the honest, Washington outsider. This issue shows how much of a politician he really is. Paul has acted without care and caution--two qualities necessary for the office of the president.

lol. You would not have voted for the civil rights act either, especially if you like your property rights.

Not voting for civil rights act =/= omg racist.

Individual freedom, left unchecked, harms the freedom of our democracy. Are property owners less free because of the civil rights act? Perhaps. Is our democracy more equal and free because of it? Definitely.

[jheit8]

Originally Posted by Piles of Crack

People need to just accept the fact that Romney will be the nominee. It sucks, yes, but the only thing that matters in politics is money.

Then I hope a freedom fighter blasts that slimeball's head all over his stupid wife's face.

[mizled]

Originally Posted by Built To Last

Except that he's a racist...

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...t-newsletters/

Great, the one good thing about him and you're slagging him for it.

[mizled]

Originally Posted by jheit8

Then I hope a freedom fighter blasts that slimeball's head all over his stupid wife's face.

They've had three years and Obamas still pres.

[jheit8]

Originally Posted by mizled

They've had three years and Obamas still pres.

Obama isn't nearly the slimeball Romney is.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Built To Last

Individual freedom, left unchecked, harms the freedom of our democracy. Are property owners less free because of the civil rights act? Perhaps. Is our democracy more equal and free because of it? Definitely.

No, your democracy is less equal and free because of it. The civil rights act should have stopped at desegregating schools and government services and left people the freedom to run their private businesses. Instead they went too far and started forcing people to have x number of employees of a certain race, and forcing people to justify themselves to the government for not doing enough business with minorities.

You're allowed (or should be, the civil rights act disagrees,) to discriminate against people when it comes to your private enterprise. For instance, you can operate a female only gym. That's racist towards men, but it's not up for the government to tell that gym owner who can use his gym.

If it were a government run gym, then it would be completely appropriate to mandate a strict no discrimination policy. Everyone owns the government and thus that gym, so everyone gets equal use that gym.

If I open a gym and only want to let my white friends in, well tough shit to other people. Start your own gym.

[Asheville]

Originally Posted by Psych

If I open a gym and only want to let my white friends in, well tough shit to other people. Start your own gym.

That's so fucking stupid. If we did that, none of the restaurant or places of businesses in the 1960's would have desegregated, and we would be a much more segregated society because of it. Imagine having a whites only Wal-Mart or Target, it's laughable, but it wasn't when the Civil Rights Act was passed, in fact, it was the status quo.

And of course, the banks could do the same, have a whites only bank too, fuck it. Realtors could discriminate too, and then you could make entire subdivisions whites only, wouldn't that be grand?

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Asheville

That's so fucking stupid. If we did that, none of the restaurant or places of businesses in the 1960's would have desegregated, and we would be a much more segregated society because of it.

It's not stupid it's freedom, and you don't know that. It's a cultural attitude, stupid. Did forcing those businesses to allow black people really change anything? Did black people all of a sudden start eating a white restaurants? Don't be silly. Only when the culture changed did the actual practices change.

Imagine having a whites only Wal-Mart or Target, it's laughable, but it wasn't when the Civil Rights Act was passed, in fact, it was the status quo.

And of course, the banks could do the same, have a whites only bank too, fuck it. Realtors could discriminate too, and then you could make entire subdivisions whites only, wouldn't that be grand?

It is laughable, because peoples cultural attitudes are different now. Show me how the civil rights act had anything to do with changing peoples attitudes towards race? It's just a piece of legislation.

If there is a a market for it, and people would be stupid enough to willingly single themselves out as racist in todays society, then I have nothing against them starting their own whites only bank. In fact I encourage all the racist to go build their own community, leave the rest of us alone.

[mizled]

Originally Posted by jheit8

Obama isn't nearly the slimeball Romney is.

Agreed.
He's far worse.

[JeffreyH]

Originally Posted by Asheville

Imagine having a whites only Wal-Mart or Target, it's laughable, but it wasn't when the Civil Rights Act was passed, in fact, it was the status quo.

And can you imagine how many customers Wal-Mart and Target would lose? Not just the potential customers they discriminate against, but the many customers they would welcome that would find such policies offensive and shop at another chain.

And do you think the reason our culture changed like that is because of that piece of legislation?

[jheit8]

Originally Posted by JeffreyH

And can you imagine how many customers Wal-Mart and Target would lose? Not just the potential customers they discriminate against, but the many customers they would welcome that would find such policies offensive and shop at another chain.

And do you think the reason our culture changed like that is because of that piece of legislation?

It helped a lot. Laws can change public opinion (Remember, people are stupid.)

Look at underaged sex. Before laws started being enforced that banned the practice, pedophiles were just people you didn't let your kids play with.

Now pedophiles get beaten by roving gangs of soccer moms.