Vote early, vote often

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-p...,0,725479.story

 

A wild card that could tip the state to Santorum: an effort by Democrats to embarrass Romney in his native state. Any registered voter can participate in the Republican primary, and Democrats have been informed by their party’s state chairman that they are welcome to do so and still participate in Democratic caucuses later this year that will select delegates to the national convention.

Vote early, vote often

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-p...,0,725479.story

 

I wish both parties would discourage their loyal drones from this sort of crap.

I wish both parties would discourage their loyal drones from this sort of crap.

 

Crossovers I can understand, voting for both is just wrong.

Crossovers I can understand, voting for both is just wrong.

Well the Dem caucus is meaningless this year, but that statement does implicitly endorse voting in the Republican primary.

Well the Dem caucus is meaningless this year, but that statement does implicitly endorse voting in the Republican primary.

 

Meaningless, but it still would be one vote. You still have the right to vote in the other race if you deem your own parties race as "meaningless". Voting in both is two votes IMO. I can't see how it isn't illegal.

Meaningless, but it still would be one vote. You still have the right to vote in the other race if you deem your own parties race as "meaningless". Voting in both is two votes IMO. I can't see how it isn't illegal.

 

It's not an official election, though, it's independent entities determining their candidates. I'm not sure how much the law really comes into play for primaries.

"[i don't follow NASCAR] as closely as some of the most ardent fans, but I have some friends who are NASCAR team owners."

-rMoney

Meaningless, but it still would be one vote. You still have the right to vote in the other race if you deem your own parties race as "meaningless". Voting in both is two votes IMO. I can't see how it isn't illegal.

Because it is two seperate elections. I am actually a supporter of being able to vote in primary elections for any and all parties, for all voters.

 

Because it is two seperate elections. I am actually a supporter of being able to vote in primary elections for any and all parties, for all voters.

 

If I did the same thing in Indiana, I'd be committing a crime. It is the same in most states. You pick one ballot, not both.

If I did the same thing in Indiana, I'd be committing a crime. It is the same in most states. You pick one ballot, not both.

Actually there are a number of states that can do both. But my whole point is, it should not be a crime, in fact it should be encouraged. I think of it as a run-off system.

 

Vote early, vote often

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-p...,0,725479.story

 

Now a Republican PAC is encouraging Democrats to vote Santorum:

 

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/...?ref=fpnewsfeed

Now a Republican PAC is encouraging Democrats to vote Santorum:

 

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/...?ref=fpnewsfeed

 

I'm not surprised at all.

"[i don't follow NASCAR] as closely as some of the most ardent fans, but I have some friends who are NASCAR team owners."

-rMoney

He really doesnt get it, does he?

Michigan is going to be down to the wire:

RCP Averages -

Romeny - 37.3

Santorum - 35.8

Paul - 13.0

Gingrich - 10.3

Spread: Romney +1.5

Michigan is going to be down to the wire:

RCP Averages -

Romeny - 37.3

Santorum - 35.8

Paul - 13.0

Gingrich - 10.3

Spread: Romney +1.5

Here's a fun topic... if by convention time, Romney doesn't have a true majority of delegates, and they enter a brokered convention... could anyone see the other three candidates getting behind one among them? I just don't see Ron Paul jumping on board with ANYONE, and Gingrich is similar that way.

 

Here's a fun topic... if by convention time, Romney doesn't have a true majority of delegates, and they enter a brokered convention... could anyone see the other three candidates getting behind one among them? I just don't see Ron Paul jumping on board with ANYONE, and Gingrich is similar that way.

 

We will see who the true coalition builders are at that point.

There's been some navel-gazing lately that Paul is setting up himself up for the Romney VP spot. He's attacked all of Romney's opponents in the debates but never really Romney himself.

There's been some navel-gazing lately that Paul is setting up himself up for the Romney VP spot. He's attacked all of Romney's opponents in the debates but never really Romney himself.

 

It would balance the ticket with a real Tea Party acceptable guy.

The movement conservatives that largely comprise the tea party don't really care for Paul.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151325/Republic...e-Nominees.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151355/Gingrich...Nationwide.aspx

http://www.redstate.com/mikeymike143/2011/...tea-party-vote/

 

The movement conservatives that largely comprise the tea party don't really care for Paul.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151325/Republic...e-Nominees.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151355/Gingrich...Nationwide.aspx

http://www.redstate.com/mikeymike143/2011/...tea-party-vote/

 

I prefaced that post with "real" for a reason.

Whatever it may have started as with that rant on CNBC, the "real" tea party is now movement conservatism. Adding Paul to a Romney ticket won't help with that group.

There's been some navel-gazing lately that Paul is setting up himself up for the Romney VP spot. He's attacked all of Romney's opponents in the debates but never really Romney himself.

Could you seriously imagine the grilling Ron Paul would get in the general? It'd make the Sarah Palin CBS interview debacle look tame.

Could you seriously imagine the grilling Ron Paul would get in the general? It'd make the Sarah Palin CBS interview debacle look tame.

Ron Paul has plenty of terrible ideas but he's never struck me as a complete and utter moron.

Ron Paul has plenty of terrible ideas but he's never struck me as a complete and utter moron.

No one's really forcing him to defend those terrible ideas (or statements, or newsletters, etc.) right now, because no one believes he has a shot at anything, and they're correct. You put him in a place where he is a legitimate threat to become President of the United States and actually have the power to do things like destroy the Federal Reserve, and suddenly he's going to have to defend each and every one of those ideas.

 

If that happens, I might as well start my own anti-Paul SuperPAC, because battering him would be so easy it wouldn't take that much effort and I could forever establish myself as a multi-million-dollar political operative.

I prefaced that post with "real" for a reason.

What you really mean is a "real" Libertarian, or close to it. The Tea Party as established by its current set of leadership and the people who identify as such, has departed from that significantly.