Hi Dave! I’m pretty sure we fucked on the 7 train.
The RNC actually did put the schedule together for it to last a long time! The prolonged 2008 Democratic primaries worked out well for the party: not only did it get headlines while McCain remained in the background, it also got to organize and campaign in all of those primary states, laying groundwork that may’ve helped Obama win some swing states later on. The Republican Party changed its calendar on purpose to try for the same deal. It hasn’t worked as well image-wise (see my previous comments on bias), but it may indeed be an organizational boost, as Romney’s set up offices and run major advertising campaigns in lots of states.
I actually think it’s obnoxious that people view this as “prolonged”. It should go to the end! What kind of bullshit fake democracy do we have where people think it’s normal for the election to end before most of the voting has taken place? I’d like to see candidates not drop out until a victory is mathematically impossible, and I’d like to see voting go down to the final state. I mean… the only reason it usually goes faster is because people drop out early. Clinton and the non-Romneys have had their own wacky reasons for staying in, but most people in their places would’ve realized much earlier that they were destined to lose and would’ve bailed.
I can think of several obvious reasons why Gingrich might still stay in:
- ego/vanity
- wanting to play kingmaker at the convention
- wanting to burnish his image for the future— he’s now a recent contender instead of a relic from long ago
- wanting to influence the debate (his perceived original reason)
- wanting to get attention and sell more books (his other perceived original reason)
More or less the same deal with Santorum, although, yeah, he’s had a more plausible shot. He seems less pompous and vain than Gingrich, but he also seems like he’ll walk away from this with a much better rep than Gingrich, and better odds of parlaying it into something. Also… why not? He’s still winning some states, he’s pretty popular with conservatives, and he has nothing better to do. He was a longshot also-ran whose desperation strategy has brought him a lot farther than anyone expected; why should he give up now?
Your logic about Romney and Limbaugh makes no sense! That’s like saying that if you and I like the same band and then you say something racist, I can reasonably be assumed to be racist.
I’ll take that one step further: I’ve noticed a common thread in how liberals talk about conservatives, which I don’t see as much of the other way around (although it’s there). There’s this tendency to lump everybody together into one monolithic Evil Empire, as though all of the Republicans go to the same meetings and coordinate the same plans and have the same ideas, while Democrats are individuals and might disagree. I think it’s silly, inaccurate, and short-sighted, and I think it does harm to liberals if it means they fail to understand the other side. Haven’t these primaries proved that Republicans as a group are NOT all on the same page with each other? (Related: this NY Times column suggesting conservatives understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives.)
I really think you’re reading a lot into Romney’s comment that’s not there. I guess yeah, he’s agreeing with the underlying issue, which is reason enough to object— but he is denouncing calling that woman a slut. I think that’s clear!
Any thoughts on the Republican primary for Gillibrand’s Senate seat? There are three candidates: Bob Turner, George Maragos, and Wendy Long. I imagine Turner would be both the front-runner and the biggest threat to Gillibrand.
Hey Hal,
We ran into each other on the 7 train. This was also not fucking, to be clear. Sorry, as per usual, for the excessive length of time between posts.
So. Romney took Ill. Santorum will take Louisiana. Maryland, DC and Wisconsin up next, with Romney presumptive to take two of three, and…
