[BunnyGo]

 hrothgar, on 2011-December-25, 06:02, said:

What's most amusing about this is that Newt is a Virigina resident...

With this said and done, Newt may actually have a decent point:

Only two out of the six Republican candidates were able to qualify for the primary.

I'm not sure whether this means that the bulk of the Republican candidates are ill prepared for a national campaign, or, alternatively, that Virginia's requirements are too strict.

Does anyone know what happened last cycle?

There were apparently 6 people on the ballot (although many of them had suspended their campaign by the election).

http://en.wikipedia....n_primary,_2008

Amusingly, only the people who were on the ballot 4 years ago and are running this year are on the ballot. Seems like the other candidates didn't have the know-how/infrastructure to do it.

[PassedOut]

 hrothgar, on 2011-December-25, 06:02, said:

What's most amusing about this is that Newt is a Virigina resident...

With this said and done, Newt may actually have a decent point:

Only two out of the six Republican candidates were able to qualify for the primary.

I'm not sure whether this means that the bulk of the Republican candidates are ill prepared for a national campaign, or, alternatively, that Virginia's requirements are too strict.

Does anyone know what happened last cycle?

My understanding is that Virginia set the rules to keep vanity candidates from cluttering the ballot. In 2008 all six republican candidates were on the ballot even though Romney, Thompson, and Guiliani had "suspended" their campaigns by then. McCain beat out Huckabee and Paul.

This year Romney and Paul had no trouble getting on the ballot again.

Before the truth came out, Gingrich announced that he had bought enough good signatures to qualify at $1.50 each, so it's hard to say what went wrong. Maybe he should have paid more. On the other hand, Gingrich also said in 1994 that the Clinton tax increase would throw the country into a depression...

Ah, I see that I've repeated what BunnyGo has already posted.

This post has been edited by PassedOut: 2011-December-25, 09:39

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-December-25, 09:36, said:

Before the truth came out, Gingrich announced that he had bought enough good signatures to qualify at $1.50 each, so it's hard to say what went wrong. Maybe he should have paid more. On the other hand, Gingrich also said in 1994 that the Clinton tax increase would throw the country into a depression...

:(

Now I understand Sarah Palin's fears:Pastor Muthee protects Palin from witches

[PassedOut]

This just in: Rick Perry Seeks Activist Judge to Overturn Virginia Election Law

Quote

Perry’s suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond, contends that the state Republican chairman and members of the State Board of Elections ­violated Perry’s constitutional rights by enforcing state requirements for the gathering of signatures.

Yep, call in the US government to clamp down on those damnable states that want to run things their own way...

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2011-December-27, 23:27, said:

This just in: Rick Perry Seeks Activist Judge to Overturn Virginia Election Law


Yep, call in the US government to clamp down on those damnable states that want to run things their own way...

I'm pretty sure he is right - isn't the all-seeing eye on the dollar bill supposed to be connected to moronic rites?

[kenberg]

It's the politicians, not the rich, who are different from you and me. If I were running for office and my campaign staff had failed to properly qualify me for the ballot, I would keep very quiet and hope that no one noticed my incompetence. It takes a special sort of guy to bring a lawsuit challenging the law that requires that the people gathering signatures for a ballot in Virginia should actually live in Virginia. I suppose the law also requires that that the names are actually names of living people, and perhaps even that they sign their own names. Fortunately we have lawyers to set it right.

[mike777]

 kenberg, on 2011-December-28, 08:32, said:

It's the politicians, not the rich, who are different from you and me. If I were running for office and my campaign staff had failed to properly qualify me for the ballot, I would keep very quiet and hope that no one noticed my incompetence. It takes a special sort of guy to bring a lawsuit challenging the law that requires that the people gathering signatures for a ballot in Virginia should actually live in Virginia. I suppose the law also requires that that the names are actually names of living people, and perhaps even that they sign their own names. Fortunately we have lawyers to set it right.

I agree with your main point about incompetence but I do think a state should be pretty limited in what rules it can demand on how any political party chooses to run its own primary or how any political party wants to choose who to run for the president of the USA on its ticket.

This rule feels like a step too far.

Now if this rule applied to the actual state vote for any party to get on the ballot for election to the Presidency that would be ok but I think the actual political party should be given extreme latitude on who and how it chooses to represent the polical party.

[PassedOut]

The thing is, these politicians who are always moaning about the federal government tromping on the states run into the arms of mama Washington whenever a state hurts their own precious feelings.

[PassedOut]

Romney: Gingrich like Lucille Ball at chocolate factory

Quote

Appearing in Portsmouth, Romney noted a statement that Gingrich's campaign director compared the former House speaker's inability to qualify for the Virginia ballot as a setback comparable to Pearl Harbor from which they would recover.

"I think he compared that to Pearl Harbor? I think it's more like Lucille Ball at the chocolate factory," Romney said...

Certainly a lot better comparison than that zany one about Pearl Harbor!

[Winstonm]

 mike777, on 2011-December-28, 09:54, said:

I agree with your main point about incompetence but I do think a state should be pretty limited in what rules it can demand on how any political party chooses to run its own primary or how any political party wants to choose who to run for the president of the USA on its ticket.

This rule feels like a step too far.

Now if this rule applied to the actual state vote for any party to get on the ballot for election to the Presidency that would be ok but I think the actual political party should be given extreme latitude on who and how it chooses to represent the polical party.

Remember, Mike is from Chicago so I'm pretty sure he's talking about "signatures from the living" when he says going too far.

[cherdano]

I agree that election laws should be inclusive. There shouldn't be undue burdens on candidates to qualify for the ballot, and for voters to register and prove their eligibility when showing up to votes. I am sure everyone agrees with that, right? Right?

[Bbradley62]

 cherdano, on 2011-December-28, 20:53, said:

I agree that election laws should be inclusive. There shouldn't be undue burdens on candidates to qualify for the ballot, and for voters to register and prove their eligibility when showing up to votes. I am sure everyone agrees with that, right? Right?

Right. But, it appears that there's widespread disagreement as to the definition of "undue burdens".

[Winstonm]

Gingrich has now pulled out the "It's my cousin's dope," explanation:

Quote

Gingrich's campaign hired workers to gather those signatures, and the former speaker of the House of Representatives said at a campaign stop that one of those workers had committed fraud.

"We hired somebody who turned in false signatures. We turned in 11,100 - we needed 10,000 - 1,500 of them were by one guy who frankly committed fraud," Gingrich said, according to CNN.

[Winstonm]

duplicate post

[Bbradley62]

Was that "one guy" an overzealous supporter or a saboteur?

[kenberg]

I see in the morning Post that Santorum is now surging. This suggests a question:
Are Republicans getting a little concerned about the twin facts that
a. They hope for almost, almost but not completely, anyone except Rommney
and
b. All the rest of their candidates, upon reflection, are even worse
?

Will the general election campaign slogan be "The best we could come up with"?

Sort of like the Walter Mondale campaign in 1984.

[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2011-December-31, 08:00, said:

I see in the morning Post that Santorum is now surging.

A week ago one of my my sisters, who lives in Iowa, told me she couldn't imagine why the evangelicals had been ignoring him in favor of even more ridiculous choices. Seems unlikely that all of them had googled his name. I guess it's just Santorum's turn now.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Will the general election campaign slogan be "The best we could come up with"?

Or maybe, "At least it's not Bachmann"?

[mike777]

Out of what roughly 300 million people for every 12,000 votes you get a 10 point surge.

40,000 votes may get you the win. These are really tiny tiny numbers when it comes to Iowa compared to how many headlines and hours/days of coverage you get.

Even 1200 votes get you a top ten finish in the race for President of the USA.

[Winstonm]

 mike777, on 2011-December-31, 11:54, said:

Out of what roughly 300 million people for every 12,000 votes you get a 10 point surge.

40,000 votes may get you the win. These are really tiny tiny numbers when it comes to Iowa compared to how many headlines and hours/days of coverage you get.

Even 1200 votes get you a top ten finish in the race for President of the USA.

There are 300 million people in Iowa? Who knew?