That's like saying if someone doesn't buy fire insurance there's a longshot chance their house could burn down and they could end up getting some type of govt assistance so they are costing taxpayers money by not purchasing fire insurance.

In b4 Snooki debate.

OK, so he included MSNBC, so, sure, it's principal bias is liberal. But the only reason why his statement is "uncontroversial" is because ~half the population has a severe victim complex and is convinced that any news outlet that does anything but parrot the GOP line is out to get them.

also, haven't been paying any damn attention lately. is this gingrich stuff for real or yet another fad? it seems difficult for me to believe it is legit.

spending is taxation.

Whether spending is covered by borrowing, printing, or taxing is just details. Holding the line on conventional taxes when the government is running a deficit is fake fiscal conservatism.

The spending discipline in the 90s was much higher when revenue and spending could be matched up. (paygo, etc.) The final blow to that discipline was 9/11. You could feel the relief from congress that they no longer had to cover new spending with cuts or revenue.

That is a little bit of consolation, but not much, since I believe the country would be much worse off with a GOP president (particularly since it would likely be coupled with GOP control of the House and Senate).

Also no media, not even MSNBC or PBS, is saying anything about Congress passing a bill allowing the President to detain, well, anyone indefinitely for basically any reason. It's not that the media is biased, it's that they are incompetent.

Ron Paul is 2nd in Iowa bitches... Buy him to win Iowa on Intrade while you can... Great value....

Thanks for your thoughts. I didn't mean to jump on the "liberal bias" meme. People should be able to think for themselves and media outlets should be able to have a slant.

The problem is that where some liberal bias exists in the media, too many conservatives have taken it and run way too far with it, where somehow every negative thing that happens to them gets blamed on that. The initial point was valid, but credibility gets lost by gross overuse of the complaint.

spoken like a true shill.

just not sure if you think he will become an intrade favourite, or actually get the conservative Iowa delegates to mark an X beside his name. Because one does not really correlate to the other.

what i'm saying is that given either gingrich or huntsman is the nominee, the chance one becomes potus rather than the other is very marginal (say 47% vs 48% - making **** up itt but prob not far off), that marginal edge for obama over gingrich is not worth the difference between a huntsman and gingrich presidency. or something.

getting my sklansky on here

This is, uh...frustrating:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...save-130m.html

Cliffs: Ohio gives people on food stamps money, in cash, to avoid a 'fine' from the Federal government.

Wow, I guess it is safe to say America has a way to go before we can claim to have a perfect system. I would hate to know how much money the govt needs to spend in order to affect these payments.

I disagree that the margin is small. I think that Huntsman would be twice as likely as Gingrich to win a general election.

Uh, yeah. I would vote for Huntsman v. Obama but for Obama v. Newt. Don't think I'm anywhere near alone.

No ****ing chance. It's not the name that matters in the ballot box so much as the political party. Good candidates will obv get more votes in the end but that affiliation by itself gets you a lock X% of the vote (and this X is quite a large number).

Wouldnt the chances of winning going from 50% to 25% represent a really small change in polled head to head chances all things being equal. So in other words if Huntsman is 50/50 vs Obama and Newt is 40/60 vs Obama then Huntsman doesnt win 10% more often but a really large figure more often?

Fwiw i think Huntsman's attraction itt is mostly a mix of being relatively unknown, clearly intelligent and there so far not being any evidence of inadequacy. If he moves up the polls its impossible to predict what skeletons could be lurking in his closet.

As a token lefty-tard, I think people on the left like him a little bit simply because he's not as far to the right as the other candidates. Plus, I have a soft spot for anyone who takes an unambiguously pro-science stance on evolution and AGW.

This. I actually like a good deal of the things Newt has said over the years, albeit he's contradicted or disavowed many of them later on. But he belongs nowhere near the POTUSy. It would be interesting, in a vacuum, to see what he'd do as POTUS with both HOR & Senate in strong Dem control.

I have no idea why Huntsman passed on the Huck thing. The Paul statement on Trump said it all. Will's column was wonderful.

As to the question in the thread title, I've been on the "eventually everyone will reluctantly settle on Romney" but now I'm not so sure. He inspires and is liked by pretty much no one. Lotta similarities to Muskie in '72, maybe we'll get an Ibogaine meltdown, or a Boo Hoo sighting! And I still think being Mormon will hurt him badly in certain states.

The analysis I've read says Newt might have some staying power at the top as opposed to the other flavors of the month. I think Perry has plenty of money, should do well in South Carolina.

If Newt can rein his ego in and not have to show he's the smartest guy in the room at all times (a gigantic "if") I suppose I'd make him a small fave over Perry at this time.

I started thinking today that Obama may well get (barely) re-elected, esp if the economy improves at all and there aren't any FP disasters or 9/11 type attacks here. By next summer most people will be so sick of this slate of GOPers, a low-profile keeping Obama might look good in comparison. He might even be able to run as an outsider against Newt.

The Dan Rather thing was a curse in disguise.

It's the economy, yo. In a recession, people always (rightly or wrongly) blame the PTOUS. I think if things get any worse, Newt/Romney wins, but a strong decrease in unemployment will mean a victory for Obama.

There was a story on Msnbc about it yesterday.

He doesnt need a strong decrease. A continuing steady fall with 50-200k jobs created every month will be enough provided stuff like the Fed loans to banks doesnt get hung round his neck.

Huntsman is not being supported by but one handful out of 100 republican primary voters. There is no reason for him to be discussed in a "who will be the R nominee thread". Ron Paul isn't going to win, but he has four times the support and some original ideas so it's cool to bring him up here.

I beleive you folks are underestimating how Newt will do vs Obama as much as you underestimated his stategy for the primaries.

Newt knows how to exploit Obamas' weakness the right way. He has the guts to do it also. Remember how Tpaw went after Rommney in interveiws, and then couldn't follow through when they were on the same stage? I am confident that Newt not only has the stones to follow through, but knows how to get max value by having his strongest point being in reponse to Obamas response to him. This isn't just in the debates, he knows how to play the overall campaign game.