Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney Complains that Newt Gingrich Supported an Individual Mandate

|

I think my Irony Meter just overheated: Mitt Romney, who signed into law the nation's only mandate to purchase health insurance and has continued to defend the provision, is bashing Newt Gingrich for the former congressman's support of a mandate to purchase health insurance.

Watching these two guys go after each other is like watching a fight between flip sides of the same coin. 

NEXT: Ron Paul Roundup: Moving into Colorado, Winning Straw Polls in Arizona and Tennessee, Supported by Superpacs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I haven’t seen this much suckitude and in-fighting since the 2008 Democratic primaries.

    1. Dude, you knew this was coming. The only surprise is that Newt is somehow a contender.

      1. Not for long. This is a weird election.

      2. I don’t think he considers himself to be a contender. He went in for the self-promotion, and now has a second job in mentoring Romney.

        1. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let’s face it. It was you, Newcular Titties.

          1. classic. great movie

    2. looking for the bilover?—datebi*cO’m— is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundred of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

    3. looking for the bilover?—datebi*cO’m— is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundred of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

    4. Bi-sexual information?Seeking for the people have the same sexual orientation. please consult the site —datebi*cO’m—, you will find the like-minded people!

  2. ROMNIAC will just point out that he only supports it at the state level, which is Good, whereas apparently Newt endorsed it at the federal level, which is Bad.

    1. How about, I dunno, a deregulatory, nonsocialist solution?

      1. so describe insurance risk pools which are “nonsocialist” ?

        1. Voluntary ones. The kind that happen when you can buy the coverage you want from the company you want to buy it from. And pay for it yourself.

          1. And then shove all the sick and old off onto Medicare/caid where 22 year old cashiers pay the freight.

            1. Fucktarded pinko is fucktarded.

            2. How can you say that 22 year old cashiers “pay the freight” of Medicare and Medicaid? Last I checked, those taxes come out of my paycheck, just like everyone else.

              1. Ok – “22 year old cashiers” meant OTHERS pay for Medicare. You are there too.

                Kill Medicare, I don’t care. Just don’t pretend that either party will make a dent in it this decade.

                1. You’re all over the map here. First, you allege that voluntary insurance means the sick and old have to go onto Medicare. Then you talk about cutting government. Do you have a coherent message, or just “Dees GOOD Arrrs BAD”

                  1. No. There are two alternative routes that are fair to taxpayers.

                    1- Kill Medicare completely now.
                    2- Put everyone on Medicare now.

                    Statism aside – those are the fair deals to taxpayers.

                    AND I DON’T CARE WHICH.

                    1. Or implement a safety net we like to call “Medicaid”, which already exists. I mean, what is the problem with that?

                    2. So you support the status quo?

                      OK. I see that. Less fair to taxpayers but better for the uninsured. I would lean to the former – but fine.

                    3. What? Yes, let’s go down a path we know doesn’t work, rather than deregulating and giving a truly private insurance and healthcare system a chance.

          2. all risk pools are socialistic by def which doesnt change if one joins voluntarily.

            1. socialism: A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated…
              (in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

            2. all risk pools are socialistic by def which doesnt change if one joins voluntarily.

              voluntary risk sharing =/= socialism.

              1. It’s not his fault that he can’t conceive of voluntary collective action, and the resultant interplay of the competing forces it implies.

          3. Hey, you wanted a description of a nonsocialist risk pool. I gave you one.

            Saying “But there’s another, socialist risk pool over there” doesn’t really do much.

            1. no, u basically said that voluntarily engaging in socialism somehow morphs the socialism

              1. Socialism requires government compulsion. It’s not socialism, otherwise.

              2. Collective action does NOT equal socialism

        2. so describe insurance risk pools farmers markets which are “nonsocialist” ?

          Idiot.

          1. kidding right? so farmers markets are analogous to insurance risk pools?

            1. leave em alone, o3 when they’re on a roll…like when bluto said cigna bombed pearl harbor

      2. Who the fuck do you think you are, a Congressman? No? I didn’t think so. Only Congressmen know the answer, rube. Go play with your grills and Confederate flags until we need your stupid children to fight our wars of adventure and pay their taxes to fund our hides.

        /Cuntcritter-in-Chief Nancy Pelosi

        1. That sounds about right.

    2. “It’s only totalitarian horseshit when THIS legislature does it, but not when THIS legislature does it. We’re making total sense here, people!”

  3. Is there any way we can have these two both go debate on the moon but a horrible accident ensues thus leaving them there permanently, and maybe we can have a GOP primary that comes down to a choice between Gary Johnson and Ron Paul?

    Maybe?

    I can’t believe we’re down to a choice between Mittens and Newcular Titties to face off against President Not My Fault.

    This shit is so depressing.

    1. I second that rec.

    2. Why do you hate me?

      1. You are a pretty harsh mistress.

    3. Didn’t that already happen?

      1. FREE NEWTZYX!

  4. “Watching these two guys go after each other is like watching a fight between flip sides of the same coin.”

    As a numismatic writer, I take exception to the comparison of these two dip shits to anything having to do with coins. Especially since the two sides or a coin are the obverse and reverse (heads and tails) and Fig Newton and Mittens clearly both belong on the tails side together due to the fact that they are both horses’ asses.

    1. My apologies to horse lovers.

    2. I remember reading about some guy, I think it was the Lone Ranger or something, who won every daily coin toss with some other person on the show regarding who did what. The specifics are totally fuzzy.

      He won because he’d have the person call it before he pulled the coin from his pocket.

      One pocket had a coin with two heads, the other had a coin with two tails.

      1. Stories like that are the reason I love my job.

  5. My opponent’s individual mandate goes too far!

    Well, my opponent’s individual mandate doesn’t go too far enough!

    1. You got your socialism on my kleptocracy!

      No, you got your kleptocracy on my socialism!

    2. Now I respect my opponent. I think he’s a good man but, quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said!

      1. Lol. +1.

  6. Tomorrow, Florida Republicans will emerge from their canasta games and press a lever.

    If they see a Newt, it means nearly five more years of Obama.

    1. Imagine waking up to a huge fucking headline on Reason’s homepage reading “Ron Paul Carries Florida.”

      That’d be a good day.

    2. Obama loses to pretty much any GOP nominee, barring a very strong third-party/independent run. The economy stagnating is just too much for him to overcome.

      So be afraid. Be very afraid. Because the next president, whoever it is, is very likely going to suck ass.

      Paul’s still in the running, at least, as Gingrich and Santorum are likely to fade quickly after this.

      1. I find your constant assertions that Obama is sure to lose to be very premature. Nothing is a given in politics, and let’s face it: most people who pulled the lever for Obama before will do so again. I don’t give a shit what they say now; partisan sheep are partisan sheep and at the end of the day they vote for their TEAM.

        1. Just my gut feeling. I was wrong about him getting the nomination before. However, that was because I thought we weren’t stupid enough to elect people without any significant political experience (i.e., Obama and Clinton) when we were in the midst of a major economic upheaval. Clearly, I was wrong. Then again, the GOP helped by nominating Colonel Tigh.

          But I think the duration of the downturn and Obama’s presiding over it without much change will be the doom of him. I also suspect that some apparent support for him will vanish when it comes time to actually get up and vote for him.

          1. See, I think you’re exactly wrong. I think the people who are saying they’re dissatisfied with Obama and that they won’t vote for him will trudge to the polls and vote for him on election day, because their fellow TEAM BLUE members will pressure them and because even though Obama hasn’t done what he’s said, you know, anything is better than letting TEAM RED win, right?

            Partisan scum are partisan scum. Never forget that.

            1. I hear you, but the wallet talks. Also, I’ve got a suspicion that even among Democrats, Obama isn’t polling at 0.01% solely because they’re scared to tell a pollster that they don’t like him. Because that means RACIST!!!

              I also suspect that there are those among the Democrats who switch over occasionally because they think–mostly wrongly–that Republicans can fix the economy so that later Democrats can spend the money.

            2. Yeah, the partisan scum will vote for Obama.

              It comes down to how many of them vote for him, and how the independents break.

              In a crap economy, I think the answer is going to be “not enough of either.”

              It comes down to when, and how big, the next dead cat bounce is.

              1. I keep hearing “You’re so Fucked” to the tune of “You’re so Vain.” I don’t know why that is.

                1. “I bet you think this election is about you, don’t you?”

                  1. There’s something in my coffee, and it ain’t clouds.

                  2. It’s in my head. IT’S IN MY HEAD!!

            3. The dem fringe breaks for the dems; like a battered wife, dkos et al will shill till the cows come home. Ron Paul voters will write in Paul or stay home; even by now they know their mission is more in moving the conversation than securing any specific political victory. Therefore, as you (Epi) say, I think Obama wins pretty handily.

            4. I still think a vote for Romney is a vote for socialism. It will be an excuse to blame an “entrepreneurial capitalist” president. We tried the free market and it didn’t work!

              1. A vote for anyone not named Paul or Johnson is a vote for socialism.

          2. I think Romney would beat Obama. He’s moderate, articulate, and doesn’t have any ideas that can be considered right-wing fringe that would turn-off independents.

            The left-wing will hammer on for being rich and successful, but all his campaign would have to do is just point the finger to Obama’s corrupt ass and his corporate dealings.

            But the weird thing about this election is that should Paul get the nomination he would also match up well against Obama for the opposite reasons.

            1. and doesn’t have any ideas that can be considered right-wing fringe that would turn-off independents.

              A huge chunk of independents, myself included, are right wing fringe. By modern definition, if you are pro markets and anti socialist, you are right wing fringe. I may want to abolish prisons, legalize all substances, not regulate abortion, pro pornography, advocate free speech to the extent that even Al-Quada should be allowed to do say whatever they feel like unmolested, I’m a right wing zealot because I believe those engaged in commerce enjoy the same freedom they would if their actions did not involve commerce.

              1. By what you typed, I could easily put you in the liberal lefty group. You sound awfully progressive with everything you typed. Something majority of right wing anythings would look down upon.

        2. Agree. Swing voters aren’t going to believe for a second that Team Red has any better ideas on the economy than does Team Blue.

          Foreign explosionsists should be raving about the job Obama has been doing in converting foreign people into smoking craters, and they know he’ll do the same thing with Iran and Syria as the Generic_Rethuglican_Candidate will.

          There aren’t enough theo-cons, crypto-racists, and straight-up racists to overwhelm the Obamatons and the He-beats-me-but-he-loves-me lefty intelligentsia.

          Obama will be President in 2013.

          1. Of the United States?

            1. I won’t guarantee the “United” part of it.

              Maybe you will get lucky and California will secede.

              1. Other way around, dude, other way around.

                1. So Texas then?

        3. “and at the end of the day they vote for their TEAM.”

          Nope. The only real given is that don’t usually vote for the other team. If Paul was running, even that would be less certain, because Paul represents a pole on a different axis (TEAM ORANGE versus TEAM GREEN, or something).

    3. FYI, there are no levers in Florida voting. Ever since the whole hanging chad debacle, we’ve switched to ballots that require you to fill in the circle next to your vote with a pen. And God help you if you don’t fill it in completely or if you scribble outside of the circles.

      1. This is correct (except that we did do the touchscreen bit for a while). I took special care to fill in the circle precisely, figuring that every election official would like to toss out a Paul vote for some reason.

  7. The kind that happen when you can buy the coverage you want from the company you want to buy it from. And pay for it yourself.

    If employer-provided insurance was good enough for Ward Cleaver, it’s good enough for you. What are you, some kind of Communist?

    1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved us all from capitalism and greed.

      /League of Misinformation — High Emperor Barack I Obama presiding.

  8. Mitt Romney… is bashing Newt Gingrich for the former congressman’s support of a mandate to purchase health insurance.

    We have always been at war with Eastasia.

  9. Cripple-fight!!!

  10. Paul is looking like the ‘less crazy ‘alternative more so to the voting public

  11. Okay, okay, they both supported a mandate. We know. With that established, can’t we just get on with Job #1, which is defeating Obama, and putting good Republicans in power?

    Eyes on the prize, people!

  12. What we need, now more than ever, is someone who knows where their towel is.

    1. I’m voting for the frood!

  13. Listening to the Glenn Beck rerun this weekend he talks about being libertarian out of one side of his mouth, and supporting Santorum out of the other.

    What a douche.

    He gives libertarians a bad name.

    1. He gives libertarians a bad name.

      Which is precisely why so many people are desperate to attach him to us.

      1. Every time I hear him say “I’m libertarian” I want to reach through the radio, grab him by the throat and scream “YOU’RE A FUCKING RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVE DOUCHEBAG! STOP CALLING YOURSELF A LIBERTARIAN! FUCKING FUCK FUCKITY FUCK FUCK!”

      2. Better or worse than when Bill Maher tried to latch on?

        1. I think Maher really was a libertarian at one point, but realized that it doesn’t pay as well as sucking Dem cock.

          And, of course, the soft socialism of the celebrity rich, who assume everyone made their money on luck and connections rather than hard work. You know, like how they made their money.

          1. I agree. I think Bill Maher was libertarian leaning before it was cool to say you were.

            Then he got fired from ABC – and started believing his supporters who treated him like g-d….. and now he’s as statist as the next moron who is absolutely positively certain they know what is best for you (& everyone else).

            1. Maher one of those who confuse “libertarian” with “libertine”, once he cleared that confusion up, he went insane.

    2. He’ll get there. He’s evolved leaps and bounds since I started listening years ago.

      1. He’s more supportive of economic liberty than he was, but he’s still a religious warmonger who is more than happy to use government to squash liberty if it fits with is religion.

      2. The sun expanding into a red giant and swallowing the Earth is only 5 billion years or so away.

        1. that’s the spirit!

      3. Also: Glenn Beck doesn’t believe in evolution.

        1. If you don’t believe in evolution, that means you likely don’t believe in cosmology, either. So no sun “evolving” into a red giant.

          1. All I’m saying he may not have time to evolve into a libertarian, a process that he doesn’t think occurs in the first place.

            1. Well, they do have that little thing they do about accepting “microevolution.” So maybe he could microevolve into a libertarian.

              We could do that Jesus-to-Kent bit with him ? la Real Genius. He’s got a significant following, so him converting to libertarianism could be useful.

              1. We could do that Jesus-to-Kent bit with him ? la Real Genius.

                If we could just get him to stop touching himself, it would be a good start.

                1. I’ll get my dental drill.

              2. Unfortunately he doesn’t wear braces. Which is a shame because with his hollow head it would work really well.

                1. Easily solved. We’ll install some braces. And spill some booze all over him to explain the odd blackout.

            2. Are you saying that Beck was born that way?

        2. If GB gave up the religion he’d probably fall off the wagon.

          Which would be worse I wonder.

          1. “Don’t you know there ain’t no devil, there’s just God when he’s drunk”

        3. Does Ron Paul?

    3. So what you’re saying is that with Beck, we have a person whose bloviations will be accorded absolutely zero credibility, save for one: his claim to be, and therefore to understand what it means to be, a libertarian.

      We can live with this.

  14. Most important to me, will any republican candidates health care plan provide coverage for torn rectum repair after gheybuttsecks?

    1. What about nongheybuttsecks? No reason.

      (drink?)

      1. [double standard feminist]

        nongheybuttsecks is a horrible perversion that cheapens heterosexual relationships and men only want to do it because of porn.

        But gheybuttsecks is beautiful and loving act that gets me really hot when I watch ghey porn.

        [/double standard feminist]

        1. [double standard feminist]

          nongheybuttsecks is a horrible perversion that cheapens heterosexual relationships and men only want to do it because of porn.

          But gheybuttsecks is beautiful and loving act that gets me really hot when I watch ghey porn. Furthermore it is part and parcel of the mysoginistic patriachy’s continueing attempts to degrade, demean, and humiliate women.

          [/double standard feminist]

          FIFY. It doesn’t count if you don’t work in the words “mysoginist” and “patriarchy” at least once.

    2. You’re doing it wrong, Jimbo. You need to spit on your dick first.

      1. I also meant to add “no homo” to the end of that post.

  15. let’s face it: most people who pulled the lever for Obama before will do so again.

    I agree. I see it every goddam day; I know people who voted for the Messiah and are deeply (deeeeply!!) disappointed in him, but will vote for him again, because he’s their TEAM’S guy. Who else would they vote for?

    The best chance we have of getting rid of the Big Zero is if those people just stay home. But they won’t, because they are responsible citizens who cannot conceive of boycotting an election (they would never willingly give up the opportunity to appoint local Commissars and assorted other busybodies to keep me in line, anyway).

    1. I can think of one nigga who ain’t voting for his home boy.

      Snoop Dog!

      1. He may have to intervene to save us all. And to think that I’ve always hated hip hop.

        1. Hate the sin, not the sinner.

        2. Snoop’s voice alone could convince me to do nongheybuttsecks, without lube, on the hood of a driverless Ford Fiesta in neutral going down the Mt Washington Toll Road.

          1. That’s certainly an interesting life insurance rider.

    2. VOTE OR DIE

      1. VOTE OR AND DIE

        The inevitable is much closer than you think.

      2. CHOOSE AND LOSE

    3. Team Blue’s disappointment in Obama is completely and totally outweighed by their fear of Team Red. End of story.

      1. Yes, but that is true on both sides. The percentages move a little here and there, but call it 35% guaranteed for each party, another 10% quite likely, and a shale 10% who actually shift their votes consistently (not just call themselves independent).
        The election game is then won on the margins – how can you best get the most people whole are most likely to vote for your side out and how can you suppress the other side?

        & the economy will keep some Obama voters home.

        But of course that’s just one piece of it – if GWB could run again, it wouldn’t mater to many Obama voters if UE was 25% 🙂

        But in general, the economy is something that hurts Obama’s reelection bid, regardless of the spoken ferocity of his supporters.

    4. If motivation is low, then less Dems will vote for O. Just like less ‘pubs voted for McCain in ’08.

      Sure, the standard 40% will come in droves, but the moderate or even moderate-left vote will be reduced.

      So yeah, O’Bammy may still eek out a win, but it will be close. I’ll give him a 40%-45% chance – just based on my gut feeling.

      Of course we’re doomed either way.

    5. Here is an excellent article that talks about how awesome voting is.

    6. As a single issue voter, I’ll vote for Obama. I’m not ready for another Sam Alito in the Supreme Court after Ginsberg passes.

  16. Mitt Rmney = Kettle
    Newt Gingrich = Pot

    1. Santorum = I’m a little teapot!
      Cain = Turkey Baster
      Paul = Meat Cleaver

      1. Meat. Ward’s younger brother.

  17. You also cannot discount the average human’s deeply held need to be part of Teh Winning TEAM.

    1. Then I’m definitely not average. Nor is any other person of libertarian tendencies.

  18. The problem with no regulations (or, at least, eliminating the existing regulations) is that it will be extremely painful when the transition occurs.

    Young, healthy, childless people have no problems with the transition. It can be rather tragic to a family that has a child with Leukemia.

    In addition, I don’t know if that would work. Libertarians would have to pass a regulation outlawing any regulations. Therefore, the only recourse the consumer would have is NO recourse.

    yea yea yea, libertarians want you to take AETNA and METLIFE to court while your child is dying of Leukemia. And, perhaps if you are a millionaire and can weather fighting Goliath, perhaps it’ll be good for someone else’s child with Leukemia.

    Since healthcare is in-elastic, I doubt a market solution would really hurt. Nevertheless, I know that us progressives will never have it our way until you guys have it your way first.

    1. There are plenty of other countries you could move to where they already do things ‘your way.’ You know the drill: love it or leave it, bitch.

      1. Actually, the truth is this country is pretty much doing that. Once I hide all my assets, I can apply for Medicaid and medical services would be paid 100%, courtesy of you. So, since you know the drill…

        1. Remember, Medicaid has a five-year lookback window, so start hiding now.

    2. And, perhaps if you are a millionaire and can weather fighting Goliath, perhaps it’ll be good for someone else’s child with Leukemia.

      The dissonance of people who look at an AETNA as ‘Goliath’ and an organization with among other things dozens of secret prisons and thousands of thermonuclear weapons as anything but is tragically amusing.

    3. The problem with being clueless and not understanding that the vast majority of libertarians realize that a certain amount of regulation is inevitable but that the least possible is generally preferable is that your cluelessness makes you so secure in your false feeling of superiority that you make no effort to understand the nuances of how libertarian policy might actually work and automatically dismiss what you don’t understand.

  19. Remember, folks, these are the BEST people the parties can come up with.

    So, why is it that libertarians are “crazy” for wanting to limit the power of government? That’s crazy but giving these moronic dipshits more and more power is sane?

    1. It’s really weird sitting here, safe in the knowledge that I am personally much smarter than any of these candidates and have almost infinitely more integrity than all save maybe one. And I’m just some guy. How did we get to the point where the incompetent and venal are actively supported to rule us?

      1. Politics in a sclerotic democracy demands shameless self-promotion and rhetorical contortion. Hence, you get characters with those peculiar qualities among all others in such a rigged social Darwinism.

        Especially when the electorate is increasingly a idle plebian mob demanding doles and circuses from the State.

        1. Without totally tossing out our system, what changes could we make to improve the quality and integrity of the people we elect? The only thing I can think of is to limit the power of government considerably. Anything else, and the scum will continue to float to the “top.”

          1. Pretty much. I’d do a turn in the barrel if I knew I was just gonna fly to DC 30 weeks a year and listen to people tell me why the government ought to do X,Y, or Z, then vote no. Its the campaign part I can’t handle. Having them turn up the college girlfriend who talks about all the stupid shit I did, that, while I don’t exactly regret, I’d rather not defend.

          2. Is it possible that to get to a level of power needed to even run for President, one has had to made faustian bargains along the way?

            Is that training for the job itself?

          3. The stuff of power is to be found in a surplus of production; a man who can produce no surplus offers no incentive to his would-be ruler. Since humans are intimately cognizant of the existence of a future, they are absolutely predisposed to the accumulation of surplus, and must always be expected to pursue such. As humans also exhibit concern for the welfare of their progeny, it can be argued that to some degree, this is also a core motivation for the accumulation of any level of excess wealth.

            As surplus increases with productivity, the opportunity for rulership likewise increases as well. The absolute value of the available pool of power, then, is a product of both technological progress over time, and of the willingness of the population, in general, to surrender a portion of their accumulated surplus when it is demanded that they do so. Any politician who is literally willing to self-regulate downwards, in terms of limiting the power demanded by the government which he represents, then, must be seen as a lagging indicator of a corresponding sentiment having become prevalent among the people. To state this more explicitly, the desire manifests first amongst the people, thus making reduction of government power a profitable platform for a politician to adopt.

            Which is to say, it is not a question of tossing out any system, but rather of fostering an unwillingness amongst the people to have their surplus expropriated, and thus draining the pool of available power. It should be expected that anomalies will be observed in the course of things, but the changes they bring must ultimately be found to have been, if not preceded by matching demands amongst the population in general.

            1. *found to have been temporary*

          4. 1) Let Senators be chosen by the states.

            2) You said it yourself: ordinary people are more honest and intelligent than professional politicians. Replace election with allotment for the House and presidential electors (but increase the number of representatives to make up for the inevitable dumbfucks that will get in… though I imagine the IQ distribution would get better regardless).

            Assuming you can keep it honest, allotment has other advantages:
            a) In a dictatorship, monarchy, etc., the 1% have 100% of the power. In electoral democracy, the 51% have 100% of the power. It’s fairer, but in lottery-based democracy, the 51% get 51% of the power (statistically speaking). Majoritarian hardliners like Tony might complain, but surely it’s the fairest arrangement in the long run.

            b) Representatives come from all walks of life — it isn’t just doctors, lawyers (no offense), former soldiers, businessmen, and professional parasites. You’d get plumbers, engineers, receptionists, homemakers, drug dealers, homeless bums. They’d actually be, you know, representative of society. Progressives should appreciate that women and minorities will be represented roughly proportional to their presence in the electorate.

            c) Terms limits are built in. If someone makes it in more than once, they’re either extraordinarily lucky or cheating, and it’s reasonable to simply disallow multiple terms to prevent the latter.

            d) Gerrymandering becomes nearly irrelevant, provided that districts in a state have very similar numbers of voters. If a hypothetical state has three districts with 20k Rs and 30k Ds, then the Ds should have 3 representatives in an electoral system. Swap some neighborhoods around so that you have two districts of 30k Rs/20k Ds, and one of 50k Ds, and you’ve just switched two votes to the minority team. Under a lottery system, both scenarios result in 1.2 Rs and 1.8 Ds, statistically.

            e) Speaking of Ds and Rs, who fucking needs parties under such a system? Ideology will still have a place, but connections will be much less important. It won’t be a golden age for third parties, it will be the death of partisanship altogether. Well, hopefully.

            f) Fucks up a lot of the asinine internal Congressional rules based on seniority and that sort of shit. Everyone will always be a freshman. No need to worry about keeping your truly awful Congressbeast because he managed to survive into a powerful chair. If Representatives want that sort of position, they’ll need to earn the support and trust of the other Representatives, and that will require a combination of intelligence, political savvy, and statesmanship.

  20. I think Romney would beat Obama. He’s moderate, articulate, and doesn’t have any ideas that can be considered right-wing fringe that would turn-off independents.

    “Independents” do what they’re told, and they’re not going to be told to vote for Romney. He’ll be the guy the TV doesn’t like, and that’s all that registers with those idiots.

    Add the depression of Republican-voter turnout because their nominee is an asshole who hates them, and you’re more likely to win the election than Romney is.

    Remember Hoover!

  21. “He’s moderate, articulate, and doesn’t have any ideas…”

    I don’t know how this became the most desirable trait in a GOP candidate, but this is a “prevent defense” strategy. Romney is the choice of a party trying not to lose rather than trying to win. That rarely turns out well.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.