Murakami wrote: Santorum is just as unelectable as Paul.

Most likely, but only because he is too right for the center. The difficulty for Romney is that the center has no place in primaries, that is all about appealing to the base, which at the moment sits slightly right of the Attila the Hun. Romney needs as many of the extreme right candidates to hang around as long as possible because if Paul, Gingrich etc dropout too early and the right solidifies under Santorum the Romney could easily lose this thing.

Be interesting to see what happens after the next primary, if the also rans do badly if they pack it in ad drop it to a three or four horse race, and if so, whether Santorum picks up those voters.

I wouldn't be surprised if Gringich ends up being Romney's main competitor after the next two stages. The only thing that has wide appeal for Santorum is his populist economic policies. But once his views on contraception become more widely known I can't see him going that far. He'll get one wing of the party, but good luck getting the old guard.

My guess is that Romney will continue to be dragged further right during this primary.

TD wrote: Fox loves Santorum because he is more conservative. The rest of the media loves him (at the moment) because he is new and interesting to the public.

Interesting in the sense that he is batshit insane. He actually said (when asked about nuclear weapons in Iran) that, "They're a theocracy with a heavily embedded sense of of a better afterlife.", and therefore they couldn't be trusted with a nuclear arsenal. Considering the direction most of the GOP members would see the US head, it's kinda funny.

Murakami wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if Gringich ends up being Romney's main competitor after the next two stages. The only thing that has wide appeal for Santorum is his populist economic policies. But once his views on contraception become more widely known I can't see him going that far. He'll get one wing of the party, but good luck getting the old guard. My guess is that Romney will continue to be dragged further right during this primary.

I don't see it, Gringich had the momentum and then he fell back into the pack. The pattern of this primary suggests he is done and dusted as none of the guys who have surged and then dropped back have gone back to the lead.

Only Gringich or Paul have the national machinary that will be necessary to challenge Romney.

I was just looking at the amount of money raised and spent in the 2008 campaign, Obama raised 700 odd million, looks like over half was spent on advertising/media... it's nuts
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php.

It's hard not to be cynical about the US's and the level of influence via campaign financing.

Worth keeping an eye on 2012 stats...
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php

eg:

Ron Paul top contributors
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/c...mp;id=N00005906

Mitt Romney top contributors
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/c...mp;id=N00000286

How the hell does the US Army, Navy and Airforce get off employing public money to donate to the political campaign of a presidential candidate? That just strikes me as screwy.

Cynic wrote: How the hell does the US Army, Navy and Airforce get off employing public money to donate to the political campaign of a presidential candidate?

Quote: The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.

The US military is apolitical, like all executive agency, and would never directly donate to a political campaign.

eug1404 wrote: The US military is apolitical, like all executive agency, and would never directly donate to a political campaign.

Except that a SuperPAC pretty much is a direct donation in every way except legally

BURN_BABY wrote: Except that a SuperPAC pretty much is a direct donation in every way except legally

Except the US military does not donate directly to any SuperPAC, only its members do, which for some retarded reason they've decided to chalk up as a donation from the US military in that idiotic website.

Yea, it's a pretty shit link to use tbh.

If you read the first paragraph you would have seen: "The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families."

What is shit or idiotic about that?

Site is terribly misleading even with that disclaimer.

Obama will win this year.

If he loses i will scream like a donkey for 1 min and upload it here.

I couldn't care less. It's not my country. I just find the process interesting.

Personally I think the presidential elections are being less relevent. It is increasingly a figurehead role as evidenced by Obama's inability to get a democratic house and senate to do what he wanted. Of more interest will be the congressional and senate contests.

So, Mitt Romney just promised Americans that he'd restore America's AAA rating if he were president in his victory speech. Oh dear....

Ron Paul is pretty happy with himself.

What a terrible speech from Paul. He sounds like an old rambler.

Murakami your opinions on the republican candidates are about as relevant as mine on menstruation. He isn't trying to sell himself to you, and your vague ramblings on him are nothing but irritating.

Murakami wrote: What a terrible speech from Paul. He sounds like an old rambler.

Honestly, the election is going to be too easy for Obama if he gets in, just gotta play the age card like Obama did to McCain last election.

Cynic wrote: How the hell does the US Army, Navy and Airforce get off employing public money to donate to the political campaign of a presidential candidate? That just strikes me as screwy.

the branches themselves dont donate, the soldiers, sailors and airmen do.

fruitcake wrote: the branches themselves dont donate, the soldiers, sailors and airmen do.

Wouldn't they just make a personal donation though? Why is it done in the name of the company? I'm somewhat confused.

BURN_BABY wrote: Wouldn't they just make a personal donation though? Why is it done in the name of the company? I'm somewhat confused.

It is at no point ever done in the name of the company/military, Ron Paul and co. just decided to extrapolate from polling that the military is a huge supporter. TBH the US DOD should really come out against Ron Paul and explicitly state that they are politically neutral.

Hah, the DOD would hate to have Paul in.