Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Iowa (David Weigel & Benjy Sarlin) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7285)

Bloggingheads 01-03-2012 11:47 PM

Iowa (David Weigel & Benjy Sarlin)
 

badhatharry 01-04-2012 12:05 AM

Re: Iowa (David Weigel & Benjy Sarlin)
 
SuperPACS are like the Allied bombing of Dresden in WWII.

Don Zeko 01-04-2012 12:14 AM

Re: Iowa (David Weigel & Benjy Sarlin)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236101)
SuperPACS are like the Allied bombing of Dresden in WWII.

Didn't we have a big stupid fight about military metaphors in political rhetoric last year? Do we really have to do this again? Yes, Matthews needs to take a deep breath and keep some perspective, but does anybody think he was not being hyperbolic in the same way that political commentators are always hyperbolic about such things?

jimM47 01-04-2012 12:59 AM

Re: Iowa (David Weigel & Benjy Sarlin)
 
Chris Matthews doesn't need perspective, he needs to embrace being a caricature of himself. (Obligatory clip from "Network")

Hume's Bastard 01-04-2012 01:53 AM

Santorum, Romney, Paul
 
Well, Santorum edged out Romney. I guess this means open season on Santorum now. Good news for Romney, because no one will trash him.

sugarkang 01-04-2012 05:27 AM

Re: Iowa (David Weigel & Benjy Sarlin)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jimM47 (Post 236114)
Chris Matthews doesn't need perspective, he needs to embrace being a caricature of himself. (Obligatory clip from "Network")

When I think of the "mad as hell" guy, I always think of Glenn Beck or Lawrence O'Donnell. Chris Matthews is just an average dude who likes to make sexual innuendo towards Erin Burnett.

Simon Willard 01-04-2012 10:35 AM

Re: Santorum, Romney, Paul
 
I read that Romney won with 25% of the vote. This is such a good illustration of the media's laughable obsession with constructing a horse race story.

Won? Really? What did he win exactly?

A more logical headline would be "Iowans show support for five Republican candidates".

bkjazfan 01-04-2012 10:57 AM

Re: Iowa (David Weigel & Benjy Sarlin)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 236135)
When I think of the "mad as hell" guy, I always think of Glenn Beck or Lawrence O'Donnell. Chris Matthews is just an average dude who likes to make sexual innuendo towards Erin Burnett.

Is this what I am missing by not having cable tv?

sugarkang 01-04-2012 11:03 AM

Re: Iowa (David Weigel & Benjy Sarlin)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bkjazfan (Post 236146)
Is this what I am missing by not having cable tv?

I don't have TV either. I have the YouTubes.

stephanie 01-04-2012 11:11 AM

Re: Iowa (David Weigel & Benjy Sarlin)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jimM47 (Post 236114)
he needs to embrace being a caricature of himself.

It seems obvious that he does. That's been his shtick forever.

badhatharry 01-04-2012 11:27 AM

Re: Iowa (David Weigel & Benjy Sarlin)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 236150)
It seems obvious that he does. That's been his shtick forever.

He used to be way more normal.

badhatharry 01-04-2012 11:29 AM

Re: Santorum, Romney, Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 236143)
A more logical headline would be "Iowans show support for five Republican candidates".

cute. but really only three.

badhatharry 01-04-2012 11:32 AM

Re: Iowa (David Weigel & Benjy Sarlin)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 236105)
Didn't we have a big stupid fight about military metaphors in political rhetoric last year? Do we really have to do this again? Yes, Matthews needs to take a deep breath and keep some perspective, but does anybody think he was not being hyperbolic in the same way that political commentators are always hyperbolic about such things?

In order for hyperbole to work it has to be somewhat close to reality. This is delusional and makes me wonder who he believes his audience is. Keith Olbermann?

But since you don't like criticizing this kind of thing, I'll be interested to see your reaction the next time someone on the right says something really, really stupid.

Simon Willard 01-04-2012 12:13 PM

Re: Santorum, Romney, Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 236153)
cute. but really only three.

Given the volatility of the electorate this year, I really don't understand how someone can spend months campaigning and then give up based on the results from a few farmers in Iowa.

Florian 01-04-2012 12:22 PM

Re: Santorum, Romney, Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 236157)
Given the volatility of the electorate this year, I really don't understand how someone can spend months campaigning and then give up based on the results from a few farmers in Iowa.

It is amazing, isn't it? I think the American primary system of winnowing out candidates is one of the most peculiar in the western world. And why, for heaven's sake, should Iowa lead?

stephanie 01-04-2012 12:35 PM

Re: Santorum, Romney, Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 236157)
Given the volatility of the electorate this year, I really don't understand how someone can spend months campaigning and then give up based on the results from a few farmers in Iowa.

The strategy of some of them is based on winning in Iowa and getting momentum from that, particularly those who don't have the money for national campaigns. (This is clearly part of Santorum's plan, and was Huckabee's, etc.) Doing well in Iowa tends to help a lot in the polls overall taken immediately after, as was seen by Obama post-Iowa, somewhat by Huckabee, by how things changed for Kerry, etc.

Bachmann in particular is from a neighboring state, was born in Iowa, and was particularly well-suited for the Iowa electorate (or so the story goes). If she couldn't do well in Iowa, no point in continuing.

Perry, on the other hand, has lots of money and may be able to do well in the South, so might as well continue. (The problem there is he's damaged himself so much.)

Simon Willard 01-04-2012 01:30 PM

Re: Santorum, Romney, Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 236158)
And why, for heaven's sake, should Iowa lead?

Well, there is some logic to leading with small states. It forces the candidates to talk to real voters. And the rest of us can watch on TV. If California were first, it would be a battle of competing television advertisements.

Simon Willard 01-04-2012 01:37 PM

Re: Santorum, Romney, Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 236160)
The strategy of some of them is based on winning in Iowa and getting momentum from that, particularly those who don't have the money for national campaigns.

Right. I'm just saying the voters are very fluid this year. And all the candidates are gaining momentum in terms of name recognition. Even after Iowa and New Hampshire, I think it's early enough that a right or wrong step can bolster or destroy any one of them.

stephanie 01-04-2012 01:46 PM

Re: Santorum, Romney, Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 236163)
Right. I'm just saying the voters are very fluid this year. And all the candidates are gaining momentum in terms of name recognition. Even after Iowa and New Hampshire, I think it's early enough that a right or wrong step can bolster or destroy any one of them.

Yeah, that's definitely true.

Sulla the Dictator 01-04-2012 02:20 PM

Re: Iowa (David Weigel & Benjy Sarlin)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jimM47 (Post 236114)
Chris Matthews doesn't need perspective, he needs to embrace being a caricature of himself. (Obligatory clip from "Network")

Matthews also had some bizarre rant about the GOP being composed of the "garbage" from the Democratic party. Then he went into an ignorant spiel about how Ron Paul had the same sane, rational, old foreign policy views of Barry Goldwater. You know, the guy who was so interventionist he was defeated for his openness to deploying nuclear weapons on Vietnam.

chamblee54 01-04-2012 02:48 PM

Re: Iowa (David Weigel & Benjy Sarlin)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 236170)
Barry Goldwater. You know, the guy who was so interventionist he was defeated for his openness to deploying nuclear weapons on Vietnam.

I was ten in 1964, so I might not be the best judge of events. America was in shock after the murder of John Kennedy. LBJ was assured of victory, barring a dead woman or a live man in a Texas bedroom. (LBJ didn't get caught, anyway)
And now for something completely different... One of these guys... they sound alike when you are multi tasking... said something about Mr. Romney losing Iowa by six or seven points. Instead, Mittens won by eight votes.
chamblee54

Sulla the Dictator 01-04-2012 04:59 PM

Re: Iowa (David Weigel & Benjy Sarlin)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chamblee54 (Post 236172)
I was ten in 1964, so I might not be the best judge of events. America was in shock after the murder of John Kennedy. LBJ was assured of victory, barring a dead woman or a live man in a Texas bedroom. (LBJ didn't get caught, anyway)

Well that's true. I was just thinking of the Daisy ad. Ron Paul is no Barry Goldwater.

Hume's Bastard 01-04-2012 05:59 PM

Re: Santorum, Romney, Paul
 
Yes, Romney edged Santorum by eight votes.

And, there was the alternative framing: 75% of Iowa voters dissed Romney!

I guess that assumes Bachmann's supporters didn't just flock to Romney, ut it's likely they would support Santorum.

Hume's Bastard 01-04-2012 06:01 PM

Re: Santorum, Romney, Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 236157)
Given the volatility of the electorate this year, I really don't understand how someone can spend months campaigning and then give up based on the results from a few farmers in Iowa.

Unless, of course, your entire strategy is predicated on a big win in Iowa - and you get 5%! I wonder if Bachmann can even hold her seat now.

Hume's Bastard 01-04-2012 06:05 PM

Re: Santorum, Romney, Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 236160)
Perry, on the other hand, has lots of money and may be able to do well in the South, so might as well continue. (The problem there is he's damaged himself so much.)

I love this meme that Perry burned silly amounts of money for a 10% showing, when Romney's PAC and Paul's crackpots gave them their wins.

Yes, Perry, the true conservative you can trust with your tax money!

badhatharry 01-04-2012 06:31 PM

Re: Santorum, Romney, Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 236158)
It is amazing, isn't it? I think the American primary system of winnowing out candidates is one of the most peculiar in the western world. And why, for heaven's sake, should Iowa lead?

Maybe it would be good if you listed the things you thought weren't peculiar about America. It would certainly take less time.

badhatharry 01-04-2012 06:37 PM

Re: Iowa (David Weigel & Benjy Sarlin)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chamblee54 (Post 236172)
And now for something completely different... One of these guys... they sound alike when you are multi tasking... said something about Mr. Romney losing Iowa by six or seven points. Instead, Mittens won by eight votes.
chamblee54

The best stuff happened right at the end. There were precinct tallies missing. CNN called some Republican Party official at her home and woke her up. She said all her precincts had reported hours before.

Much drama as Wolf Blitzer drilled down for us.

ohreally 01-04-2012 07:38 PM

Re: Santorum, Romney, Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 236158)
It is amazing, isn't it? I think the American primary system of winnowing out candidates is one of the most peculiar in the western world.

If it were only the primaries... Take the Electoral College, that nonsensical anachronistic piece of political engineering. Or take the abomination that is the US Senate, which puts California on a par with Wyoming, even though the latter has a grand total of 5 residents (Dick Cheney + 4 illegals working for him). Or take voting on a work day, tuesday (so farmers can spend all of sunday at church and then get on their horses to be at the polling station by tuesday, meanwhile screwing over the farmers addicted to monday night football). Or take the Supreme Court: 9 political appointees to read the tea leaves of the US Constitution and tell us all sorts of things that are not there, such as whether a woman can get an abortion. Or take the US Constitution, for that matter, a virtually unamendable document that is sufficiently ambiguous to mean whatever pleases our Delphic sybils on the supreme court. In fact they could fire all 9 of them and replace them with a monkey tossing a coin on his nose and the outcome would be just as historically informed.

Wonderment 01-04-2012 07:42 PM

Re: Santorum, Romney, Paul
 
Quote:

Or take the abomination that is the US Senate, which puts California on a par with Wyoming, even though the latter has a grand total of 5 residents (Dick Cheney + 4 illegals working for him).
Dick Cheney is the illegal, not the people who mow his lawn.

sugarkang 01-04-2012 08:14 PM

Re: Santorum, Romney, Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 236227)
Dick Cheney is the illegal, not the people who mow his lawn.

I think we can put Dick Cheney and Obama in the same camp now. Obama had threatened to veto the NDAA why? Because it didn't give him enough executive power. Yep, Bush/Cheney/John Yoo power wasn't enough for him. He needed more. And to get more, he made it look, politically, as if he was opposed to such power by threatening a veto. Genius.

Now seems a good time to make a comparison to a racist, anti-Semitic crank, member of the homophobic, Islamophobic party on what to do with Al-Alawki.

I understand why someone would become a neo-con now.

bjkeefe 01-04-2012 08:14 PM

Re: Iowa (David Weigel & Benjy Sarlin)
 
test

graz 01-04-2012 08:16 PM

Re: Iowa (David Weigel & Benjy Sarlin)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 236237)
test

You passed!

Florian 01-05-2012 04:15 AM

Re: Santorum, Romney, Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 236224)
..... Or take the US Constitution, for that matter, a virtually unamendable document that is sufficiently ambiguous to mean whatever pleases our Delphic sybils on the supreme court. In fact they could fire all 9 of them and replace them with a monkey tossing a coin on his nose and the outcome would be just as historically informed.

That's my impression. You have to give the sybils credit, though, for subtlety ingenuity, sophistry....what the Germans call Spitzfindigkeit....in updating an 18th document intended for a very different kind of society. At least they are men of learning. American presidents, on the other hand.... I know, I know, what I was going to say isn't a very democratic.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.