Anonymous wrote:I remember 1980.

Yeah, back then a guy could get nominated who:

*did not hate mexicans, and would eventually give amnesty to illegal immigrants
*considered food stamps compassionate, and boasted about the level of support they gave
*was willing to raise taxes to fix the budget
*nuclear arms reduction was considered a moral good and a necessity for our security

I also remember how none of the candidates went around bashing intelligence, and they were allowed to have actual differences of opinion. As a result, the candidates actually had and debated different opinions about economics (remember voodoo economics?) and the grain embargo (some for, some against!). In today's primary, the debates are about proving who is faking their adherence to a uniform set of conservative litmus tests.

The dysfunction of this primary is the direct result of the untenable list of extreme positions required to survive the primary process. Once again, the Republican Party needs to pare down its platform to focus on what is truly important, or it will doom itself to also-ran status. Whether this happens in this election or in twenty years from now, the writing is on the wall.

Anonymous wrote:I remember 1980.

Ha! So, the presumptive Republican nominee, previously having been Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, Cain, Santorum, and Gingrich again, will actually be Zombie Ronald Reagan?

That's probably the only thing that could make this nomination battle even more absurd than it is already.

I remember 1980.

The chickens have come home to roost. The republicans should have spent the last 3 years soul searching for their core principles. Ironically, the Tea Party may have actually spelled them out. Limited government, small government, fiscal responsibility.

But instead they ignored all that, and now they don't have a clue who they are. Are they pro-business? social conservatives? libertarian? pro-interventionist foreign policy or isolationist? stance on immigration?

So in a time when the economy is the #1 issue, they are sucking up to the wingnuts on everything else. Can we make it worse? Sure, ask them whether they would support abortions for molested 10 year old girls. Sit back and watch them try to out-do each other. Has Alabama gone far enough in its immigration control? Discuss! I'm eager to hear what you come up with. Unemployment insurance, SNAP? Evil I know, but who thinks it is the evilist? (yes, I know that is not a word). Can we get back to important stuff, like whether we can make English the official national language and can we randomly stop mexican-looking people and ask them for proof of citizenship?

I doubt that anyone cares, but just for the record, 23:29 was me.

How about the speculation that the primaries might not be decisive and there might be an open convention. If it reaches the point of freeing the delegates and others come under consideration, who do you think might end up with the nomination? I'm asking both for whom you'd like to see and who you think is the most likely choice.

Also, who are the possibilites: Pawlenty, Daniels, Christie, Jeb, Huck, ...? OMG, Palin???

I think this is hilarious. I hope the fight between the plutocrats and the yahoos stays hot.

Too bad the best we can get in the end is the current Republican president.

While I can't believe anyone would actually vote for Gingrich, this makes me giddy to see what a debacle the GOP primary is.

I will add one thing: if Santorum gives up, his votes go to Gingrich. Based on the S.C. exit polls, there appears to be real resistance from evangelicals to support Romney.

Romney has an authenticity gap. People aren't connecting with him. His supporters think he is electable in the way that some woman might settle for the boring guy with the stable job.

Gingrich is great at pushing those conservative buttons in a very genuine and passionate way. The primary voters are so desperate for that passion that they will forgive almost anything to get it.

The problems are (1) they are not the typical election day voters, and (2) he is a really flawed guy, and it's hard to turn a blind eye to that for ten months of campaigning.

This primary is about what the party lacks more than what it should be. That's why you have 1 pro-business technocrat, 1 libertarian, and two social conservative washington insiders, each pulling 10% or more. And why Romney seems to bump into a glass ceiling, New Hampshire notwithstanding.

Ahhhhhhh just read that 230,000 people in SC took time out of their day today to cast their vote for Gingrich. My head is exploding again!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone vote for Gingrich???? Why is this happening???

You remember that basically this same group of people voted for Bush in 04. You still worry over these questions?

You're right, PP. Thanks for reminding me that a Gingrich win would probably be good for those of us who are not conservative religious bigoted hypocrites. I'll calm down for now.

Well, I can't tell you why anyone would vote Republican...
But all I can say is I love that Gingrich won! The longer and messier this primary is, the better!

Why would anyone vote for Gingrich???? Why is this happening???