2012 republican presidential nominee IV: NEEDS MORE BOOING

gas pump suicide dont do it

http://i40.tinypic.com/2amich.jpghttp://i11.tinypic.com/53ucxtl.gif

lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8-aqyUQoFA

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/post/at-elite-gridiron-club-dinner-the-jokes-on-mitt-romney/2012/03/25/gIQAv5VLZS_blog.html?hpid=z9

it seemed to be Rick Perry’s night to throw those bombs:

“Yes, I would say stuff like ‘Solyndra is a country,’ or ‘The voting age is 21,’ ” the governor acknowledged. “Mitt would say things like, his wife drives a couple of Cadillacs, or his pals own NASCAR teams. My problem was saying stuff that wasn’t right. Mitt’s problem is saying stuff that is.”

Oooh! “You know, it was weird standing next to him at the debates. I kept waiting for him to say, ‘Pardon me, would you have any Grey Poupon?’”

Something occurred to me tonight. I really miss Bruno Kirby.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/03/21/us/21santorum5/21santorum5-blog480.jpg

"Sir, in my heart, I know I'm funny. "

stress beginning to get to Santorum

I love that Santorum is now wielding a physical Etch-A-Sketch in his speeches; it's like some Garry Trudeau floating waffle shit.

I hope he starts talking to it.

some Garry Trudeau floating waffle shit.

haaa otm

I hope he starts talking to it.

― pplains, Monday, March 26, 2012 9:44 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

or rather, has the etch-a-sketch respond to questions rather than himself.

I could see him turning out like this except with the etch a sketch:

http://www.mamapop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/mel-gibson-beaver.jpg

Obama lost in Romneyville:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNxEDomUlXw

Not sure which is funnier: that Obama would step into this within days of the Etch-a-Sketch thing, or that Romney's calling Obama's comments "very, very troubling."

eh this is not a big deal imho

Romney absolutely desperate to have Obama mention him by name tho lol

holy shit obama politicking with important foreign relationship motherfucking russia? i hope to god he's giving all kinds of explanations every day to them bc that's his job.

"I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

^^^Russian guy talking like Romney...I don't think this is a big deal either, and yes, he's pragmatically doing his job. I just think it's funny that he'd get caught on mike saying virtually the same thing Romney's guy said last week. I suspect Santorum will use this in the next few days to morph Romney and Obama together even more.

i just think the admission that medvedev has to relay anything of import to putin is hilarious.

"mr president, there are nuclear missiles headed toward moscow. they will arrive in three minutes."

"i will transmit this information to vladimir."

transmitting live from medvedev

medvedev, president of the russian fanclub for vladimir

vladimir, this is medvedev!
what is it, my son
vladimir, i have an important transmittal from u.s. head of state "barack obama"!
tell me the information
he says that he will have more flexibility after the election!
very interesting, i have never thought of that

this is the kinda thing that's a big, big, big deal to people who already hate obama but it's not gonna affect the marginal voter

yeah obama's comment to that effect might have appeared condescending

who knows what these heads of state talk about in private moments though

i often wonder about such things

sometimes they bitch about how much they hate bibi

yeah i loved that

I would guess they are almost always less interesting than you would expect

nachos, 9 diamond whores, Tebow

The Russian Nachos were beautifully done and super tasty. It had a tiny bit of spiciness which boosted the flavor of the fish eggs on the sashimi.

Much better when you cut out the middlemen.

http://clclt.com/imager/drstrange/b/original/2342709/50a6/drstrange.jpg

(Have at it, Z S.)

mitt romney mitt romney's campaign staff just wrote this editorial for foreign policy magazine on obama's medvedev "gaffe":

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/27/bowing_to_the_kremlin

It is not an accident that Mr. Medvedev is now busy attacking me. The Russians clearly prefer to do business with the current incumbent of the White House.

This is understandable. The Russians have seen Romney lay waste to Rick Perry and Herman Cain. They want no part of that.

i think it's fair to say that "the russians" couldn't give half a shit about mitt romney

Sad that a major presidential candidate gets pwned in the press by a regime that's currently enabling the slaughter in Syria, but I guess every day in this campaign is sad.

hahah omg this fn guy

http://i.imgur.com/vmLe5.jpg

During an appearance at a Wisconsin bowling alley the former senator heroically intervened when a male member of a group of college Republicans nearly made the life altering mistake of rolling a neon pink bowling ball down the lane. "Friends don't let friends use pink balls," Santorum declared.

Santorum was all over pink balls in Wisconsin this week...

omg Cantor pic

the quote really puts it over the top

This thread needs a makeover.

1) Turn it into a comedy poll. (Officially, that is--unofficially, it always has been.)
2) Get the Rolling Stones into it somehow.
3) Make it more in the style of a Lincoln-Douglas debate.

Recommended to iatee:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/models-based-on-fundamentals-have-failed-at-predicting-presidential-elections/#more-29633

(Follow-up to some back-and-forth we once had as to whether the economy was always the most important issue in an election.)

quality lolpic

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1rm69uZug1qa7yfto1_500.jpg

well I don't think I ever said "nothing else matters", I just said it was always the most important factor - and even if it only explains 40-50% of the result, as silver suggests here http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/which-economic-indicators-best-predict-presidential-elections/ - it would take a fairly extraordinary election for something else to play a bigger role. even if the economy tanks, I don't think david duke could beat obama - ideology does matter. and campaign effects exist - even if the economy tanks, I don't think mitt romney could beat obama if he decided to only air ads with him in a bikini singing 'ALL AMERICANS WILL BE MORMONS WHEN I AM PRESIDENT'. so there are def ways obama could win even if the economy sank into a depression. it's just not super likely given a 'fairly normal campaign' and w/ a candidate w/ a 'fairly normal ideological views'.

w/ a 'fairly = w/ 'fairly

I know you never meant "nothing else matters," and I agreed with you that, in most every election, yes, it's the economy. The one specific one we disagree on is '68, where I just think other issues took precedence.

did I? I mean 1968's an outlier election all around cause it was a major structural shift in the party composition + a war, that's to say an election where the ideology and candidate effects were pretty huge. I think what I was arguing was that even when it seemed like the economy 'didn't really matter', it still plays an important role - 1968 happened w/ the backdrop of a strong economy, and if he had happened w/ an economy in chaos, nixon would have won by even more. it might not have won or lost an election but it doesn't stop existing as a variable when the economy isn't in chaos. if the gop falls apart in coming decades (I think there is a decent chance this happens) there will be some unusual elections.

We're right back to where we left off. I conceded that the economy's always a factor (how could it not be?); I was saying then, and now, that in certain elections, though--an outlier, of course, or a perfect storm--it won't always be the most important factor. '68 was just such a perfect storm. And I thought then, and still do, that it's just semantics when you try to prove something in the negative (i.e., even though the economy was strong, it's still a major factor by virtue of it not being weak).

it's not just semantics, when we look at these things as variables, 'factors' exist whether they're expressed or hidden in the narrative. as far as the weight of various variables go, that's a good example of an election where it'd be given less weight - like, let's give it 20%. that 20% contributed to the fact that the popular vote was actually quite close between nixon and humphrey. in a world where some other major event happened that hurt nixon in another variable + there was no electoral college, humphrey wouldn't be far from winning the election, and 'the economy', despite not having changed, now seems pretty important.

basically in both cases the economy mattered '20%', in one of them it seems more relevant to the story because it was part of the group of factors that lead to a majority popular vote, in the other story it seems like something that should be downplayed because it was part of the group of factors that lead to a .7% gap in the popular vote.

if you want a baseball analogy, the run scored in the 1st inning and the run scored in the 9th inning both contributed 'the same amount' to a 2-1 victory, but the one in the 9th always seems more important. a strong economy can be a run in the 1st, even if that 2nd run doesn't come it doesn't change the value of a run, which was 'nothing in a loss, but the game was closer than it woulda been'.