Summations Only

So, Romney took Illinois, Santorum seems fair set to take Louisiana.Why is Newt Gingrich? What's he there for? It would be easy, indeed facile, to explain his candidature with the words "ego trip", except that in fact he must be taking a repeated pummeling to his ego as he finds out that everyone hates him because ... well, because he's filth, I think that's the main reason. He might well be ahead of Santorum if he wasn't such a sack of shit.So why is he still in the race?

One suggestion I've heard is that the Repugnantcan party is so unhappy with the prospect of Romney being the candidate that the others are staying in the race to deny him the necessary delegates to win the nomination in the hopes that a brokered convention would produce someone else. That makes as much sense to me as anything else to explain why any of them besides Romney are still in.

Here's Romney's Communications Director on CNN: Hello, Mr Fehrnstrom? You don't say that in public. Yes, in private you can admit --- you can even gloat over --- the fact that your candidate is an unprincipled shill who'll say whatever will get him elected, but in public perhaps you should pretend that he's a man of character and not an empty suit.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I've heard rumors surrounding a semi-conspiracy-theory tactic supposedly undertaken by Ron Paul supporters - to install as many Ron Paul supporters as delegates as possible, such that in the case of an open vote at the Convention Ron Paul might be nominated despite not winning a single state. That sounds a bit too...I don't know how else to describe it but to say "conspiracy theory" to sound likely to me, but it does sound sufficiently plausible as a general tactic.At this point the result is not clear-cut, and so there really could be an open vote, and an open vote could very well result in Gingrich or Santorum getting the nod depending on the leanings of the individual delegates themselves. Without any conspiracies, since they're both more popular with Republicans than Paul (I'm still shocked and dismayed at the number of Paul supporters among self-identified liberals and moderates, who clearly aren't paying any attention at all).

For one thing, having a rich sugar daddy to finance the whole ride must be a powerful enabler. If he had to raise the funds himself from his followers, he would have had to drop out long ago as those funds would have dried up as his followers saw that he has no hope of winning. I've also heard where this entire super-PAC funding issue will also lead to a drying up of grass-roots support for the candidates, something that will also affect Obama's re-election campaign. But back to the original question, as long as any candidate has a rich donor footing the bills, there's no reason to drop out.Second, there certainly must be something to the idea that nobody wants to just hand the candidacy to Romney. And the fact that so many Republican voters aren't happy with having him as a choice but only vote for him because he's the most electable one offered them must weigh in to that idea as well.Third, even though Romney seems inevitable, there's still the party platform to be hammered out. It looks like they all want to have some say in building that platform and the currency that gives each of them that say is the number of delegates that they hold in their back pockets. Again, it's the change away from winner-take-all that splits up the delegates and enables this reason.Fourth, what are the losing candidates' future plans? This one is just my own crazy thought. Normally, I can only think of one candidate who, election year after election year, went out campaigning in the primaries and, in spite of being a running joke, finally ended up becoming the GOP candidate, the 40th President, a GOP idol, and replacing Thomas Starr King in the Capitol Rotunda. But other than him, I cannot think of any other candidates who lost and came back to try again. Is that something that any of them, include Newt, even consider? Well, this time around Sarah Palin was testing the waters cautiously, but didn't dive in. Could some of the candidates be trying to jockey into some position in the actual Presidential campaign that they hope they can broker into a better chance running in the future? Having had to deal with a megalomaniacal creationist he is truly a "sack of shit", I can safely say that a megalomaniacal sack of shit will not recognize that simple fact of life, even though it's obvious to everybody else.Edited by dwise1, : SoS addendum.

McCain was vilified by Bush Jr. then became the nominee in 2008. Romney was destroyed by McCain, then is looking to become the nominee in 2012.Santorum and Gingrich are jockeying to be the runner-up, which means they should be "next in line" for the next contested Republican primary season. If Romney loses to Obama, the ultra conservative wings will say that he lost because he was too moderate, and suddenly Santorum or Gingrich looks good to them again.Im willing to bet on it, unless a scion of a Reopublican family steps in, Santorum or Gingrich will be the nominee in 4 years. (I'm assuming Romney loses, if he doesn't, then one of them will be the nominee in 2020.)

The more I listen to the republican candidates, the more they scare the hell out of me. All of them scare the hell out of me.

The share price of the company that wakes Etch-A-Sketch has tripled as a result of Fehrnstrom's remarks.Personally I don't think it's much of an advertisement. The slogan "Etch-A-Sketch --- It's As Much Fun As Mitt Romney!" isn't going to shift many units.

Nor "Etch-A-Sketch, for the flip-floppers and convictionless."

I'm still puzzled how anyone, especially Romney's top advisor, could make such a statement. It's really amazing.

I think you misspoke a bit here. It is only Romney and his advisors who would not be expected to make such a statement. Most other people know that a) Romney has a history of taking politically expedient positions and b) it is probably true that you cannot get elected president by taking far right positions against college education, women's health, and for teaching poor kids janitorial skills in elementary school.

perhaps you could find a bigger picture to overload my connection next time.waste of bandwidth.

Yes, it's a waste of bandwidth.On the other hand, I am not using a 110 baud teletype over dialup any more.

Hi nwr, I use an air card to get online ... so I am dependent on getting good coverage. Where I am the coverage is lousy - barely adequate for phone conversation, and my phone lists it as 1x (it tells me when I have 3g or 4g available).Overall I usually get good coverage, it just happens that this place is a luddite hole.Enjoy.