|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 14, 2012 13:16:37 GMT -5
Independently, Gingrich may very well be irrational, but this is a political race, and having read the Romney memo this morning that purports to argue that Romney is inevitable, it merely argues that Romney is ahead and will stay ahead. The other campaigns probably accept this and have to. The math does not lie.
But, this is not a race decided by who has more delegates. It is a race decided by who can amass 1144 delegates.
Absent in this morning's Romney memo was a supported argument that Romney will hit 1144. He needs somewhere north of 47% of the remaining delegates to do that.
I agree that Romney's campaign remains focused on the end game. The problem is that they cannot play that game yet because they don't have the 1144-based numbers behind them. If they did this morning, they would have talked about that with more than mere generalities.
The difference in the delegate math politics between Romney 2012 and Obama 2008 is that David Plouffe (or a high-level staffer) leaked a grid showing where the delegates would come from and why Obama was a mathematical inevitability based on the threshold (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obamas_projections.html). Of the 27 projections that David Plouffe made in his famous February 2008 spreadsheet, he got 24 right, and in any event, they ended up with more delegates than they expected.
No such release has been forthcoming from the Romney campaign because this is simply a case that they cannot make right now. Surely if they could make it right now, they would. They may yet be able to make it if the dynamics of the race change (Santorum or Gingrich bowing out or some poll change), but absent that, I do not see it.
ON EDIT: As to the Hawaii mantra of the Romney camp this morning, one word is appropriate - schadenfreude.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 14, 2012 14:02:48 GMT -5
Were Newt to get out of the race, almost an impossibility because of his ego, Santorum could make it a race. Every race so far has had Romney against two or more anti-Romneys.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Mar 14, 2012 14:46:22 GMT -5
Were Newt to get out of the race, almost an impossibility because of his ego, Santorum could make it a race. Every race so far has had Romney against two or more anti-Romneys. And yet you have the Santorum/Gingrich prisoner's dilemna that will ensure that will not happen.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 14, 2012 15:29:01 GMT -5
Hey I'm a Democrat so I'm fine with Romney letting morons run his campaign but I'm also from Mississippi so even as a Democrat I am offended that Romney's campaign assumed that Mississippi Republicans are all ignorant fundamentalists. The business establishment is still firmly in control of the state GOP - think Haley Barbour, Trent Lott, et al - not the know-nothing tea partiers. Romney's people completely misread the state talking about grits and dumb like that. Newt and Santorum get away with saying stupid because that is how they have always run for office. They are experienced panderers to the fears and prejudices of the paranoid right. Romney is never going to be that so he should stop insincerely and lamely pandering and demonstrate some of the competence he is supposed to have.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Mar 15, 2012 6:24:24 GMT -5
Independently, Gingrich may very well be irrational, but this is a political race, and having read the Romney memo this morning that purports to argue that Romney is inevitable, it merely argues that Romney is ahead and will stay ahead. The other campaigns probably accept this and have to. The math does not lie. But, this is not a race decided by who has more delegates. It is a race decided by who can amass 1144 delegates. Absent in this morning's Romney memo was a supported argument that Romney will hit 1144. He needs somewhere north of 47% of the remaining delegates to do that. I agree that Romney's campaign remains focused on the end game. The problem is that they cannot play that game yet because they don't have the 1144-based numbers behind them. If they did this morning, they would have talked about that with more than mere generalities. The difference in the delegate math politics between Romney 2012 and Obama 2008 is that David Plouffe (or a high-level staffer) leaked a grid showing where the delegates would come from and why Obama was a mathematical inevitability based on the threshold (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obamas_projections.html). Of the 27 projections that David Plouffe made in his famous February 2008 spreadsheet, he got 24 right, and in any event, they ended up with more delegates than they expected. No such release has been forthcoming from the Romney campaign because this is simply a case that they cannot make right now. Surely if they could make it right now, they would. They may yet be able to make it if the dynamics of the race change (Santorum or Gingrich bowing out or some poll change), but absent that, I do not see it. ON EDIT: As to the Hawaii mantra of the Romney camp this morning, one word is appropriate - schadenfreude. In one week if they get Illinois, it's officially over. Nobody has the resources to last until late April. The "numbers" game is always money. Santorum has to make the case he might win to stay in the race. That is almost impossible.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 15, 2012 12:01:13 GMT -5
Halperin: "Romney’s effort to force his rivals out of the race by noting that he will almost certainly have a plurality of the delegates needed for the nomination by the Tampa convention is now deader than Elvis. With Newt Gingrich determined to stay in the race, attracting a portion of the conservative vote, Santorum has to figure out how to beat Romney with a divided anti-Mitt alliance."
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 15, 2012 12:52:46 GMT -5
Halperin's second grade analysis.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 21, 2012 13:10:09 GMT -5
Halperin's second grade analysis. It turns out that Romney's campaign knows something about the second grade. No better way to celebrate a win than by having a campaign ode to the Etch-A-Sketch.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 21, 2012 16:38:54 GMT -5
Halperin's second grade analysis. It turns out that Romney's campaign knows something about the second grade. No better way to celebrate a win than by having a campaign ode to the Etch-A-Sketch. What, were you unable to find a pundit or nominal Republican consultant to quote on this issue?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 23, 2012 10:25:32 GMT -5
Probably a lot more than Solyndra did. B-b-b-b-but that's not Obama's fault. “Obviously, we wish Solyndra hadn’t gone bankrupt. Part of the reason they did was because the Chinese were subsidizing their solar industry and flooding the market in ways that Solyndra couldn’t compete. But understand, this was not our program per se. Congress–Democrats and Republicans–put together a loan guarantee program.”
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 23, 2012 11:10:38 GMT -5
Loan subsidies and tax credits as incentives for certain kinds of private activities almost always do two things:
1. Subsidize projects that would have happened anyway with private financing but are redesigned to capture the government subsidy.
2. Sink federal subsidies into projects that are not viable or are overreaching or poorly timed, such as an expansion of solar panel production at a time when there was almost no housing or commercial construction and therefore no demand for more solar panels.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Mar 23, 2012 11:56:15 GMT -5
2. Sink federal subsidies into projects that are not viable or are overreaching or poorly timed, such as an expansion of solar panel production at a time when there was almost no housing or commercial construction and therefore no demand for more solar panels. Huh? This one makes no sense to me when you look at the growth of installations - the market is hardly saturated for existing building installations. Solyndra itself was targeting commercial buildings (not housing) - and I don't think it was dependent upon new construction.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 23, 2012 12:34:50 GMT -5
The commercial solar market as a whole was being subsidized by tax credits, bonus depreciation, etc. It is one thing for the government to incentivize commercial buildings to install solar and then let the private market meet the demand. It is another ill-advised thing for the government to directly subsidize one company or a few companies. The government almost always gets played in those situations and ends up eating some bad loans. www.greenbuildingpro.com/articles/57-features/2565-solar-pv-and-cpv-technologys-market-trendsQuote about the market: Despite the global financial crisis in 2009, the United States became the second largest photovoltaic (PV) solar energy market in the world, second only to Germany. This growth is credited mainly to the supportive policy implemented by both federal and state governments, particularly the Renewable Energy stimulus package as well as guaranteed financial incentives for the next eight years as introduced by the Obama administration. This unprecedented growth in the US solar PV market also is attributed to the tremendous growth of the market in California, which accounted for more than 70% of the country’s solar PV installations. The California solar PV market got its boost from strong policies implemented by the state government that heavily favored the solar energy industry, as well as statewide campaigns that encouraged use of solar power within the state.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Mar 23, 2012 14:00:54 GMT -5
I don't care if the Republican ticket is Sideshow Bob and Mr. Teeny, if this campaign becomes an energy debate, Obama and his "A+" administration are dead meat.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Mar 23, 2012 14:21:44 GMT -5
The commercial solar market as a whole was being subsidized by tax credits, bonus depreciation, etc. It is one thing for the government to incentivize commercial buildings to install solar and then let the private market meet the demand. It is another ill-advised thing for the government to directly subsidize one company or a few companies. The government almost always gets played in those situations and ends up eating some bad loans. I get that, the part I disagreed about in your post was the idea that solar installation growth was tightly coupled with new housing and new commercial building growth.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 28, 2012 15:50:39 GMT -5
Since I'm just going to assume that everyone that checks the B&G political threads checks all of them, I'm going to put this here:
For conservatives (heck, liberals can play this game too)--would you rather the SC threw out all of Obamacare, BUT Obama was reelected, or have the SC uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare and have Obama lose (assume Romney wins in this scenario)?
The question stems from the idea that some people are advancing that removing Obamacare would remove the albatross from Obama's neck, allowing him to win reelection. Would establishing a limit on the Commerce Clause be more important than whatever Obama might do with his increased flexibility? Or is it better to get Romney in there, hope they can overturn Obamacare but with the knowledge that the Federal Government now has the same plenary powers as the states? (Liberals can come up with their own pro/cons for the two scenarios)
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 28, 2012 16:08:14 GMT -5
I think that is a great academic question, but to editorialize, I cant possibly believe that 99.9% of conservatives oppose Obamacare because of the expansive plenary power under the Commerce Clause it would grant to the federal government.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Mar 28, 2012 16:17:57 GMT -5
I would prefer the latter option. One on one, I don't think there is much to distinguish Romney and Obama on policy grounds (including on the mandate), so I would be happy to take the constitutionality of HCR.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 28, 2012 16:25:03 GMT -5
Would establishing a limit on the Commerce Clause be more important than whatever Obama might do with his increased flexibility? Yes. Imagine the crap liberals would try to pass if they had confirmation of their belief that the federal goverment can and should attempt to cure all ills.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 28, 2012 16:27:01 GMT -5
Would establishing a limit on the Commerce Clause be more important than whatever Obama might do with his increased flexibility? Yes. Imagine the crap liberals would try to pass if they had confirmation of their belief that the federal goverment can and should attempt to cure all ills. But, if your State did it, that would be okay?
|
|