Republican Presidential Primary
The field seems to be so wide open right now.
I like to ponder such things early and then after somebody wins, I come back and read what people thought and see how that turned out to be right, or how it turned out that there were other things to consider.
The Contenders (that I'm aware of):
MITT ROMNEY - establishment candidate
RICK SANTORUM - true conservative candidate
NEWT GINGRICH - neoconservative
RON PAUL- small government conservative
FRED KARGER - more info as it is available (who am I kidding? I'm never gonna look this guy up) OK I finally looked him up - Founder of Californians Against Hate, gay rights activist, former adviser to Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Ford.
MICHELE BACHMANN
JON HUNTSMAN
HERMAN CAIN -
RICK PERRY -
LEADING VEEP PICKS
- Herman Cain - see above
-Bobby Jindal - governor of Louisiana
Bob McDonnell - governor of Virginia
-Jim DeMint - senator from South Carolina
-Chris Christie - governor of New Jersey
-Paul Ryan - representative from Wisconsin
-Allen West - representative from Florida
-Rob Portman - senator from Ohio
Marco Rubio - newly elected Senator from Florida
Nikki Haley - governor of South Carolina
Tim Pawlenty - former governor of Minnesota
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GARY JOHNSON - Gary Johnson is now running on the Libertarian ticket
BUDDY ROEMER - Buddy Roemer is now seeking the nomination of the 3rd party group Americans Elect
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Note - names are bolded, italicized and underlined if they have formed an exploratory committee to run for president
All caps means they have announced their candidacy
Strikethrough means they have stated they will not run for president
(I re-ordered them to put those with hats in the ring at the top, then those who still have exploratory committees, and then the no-thank-you's)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
PRIMARY RESULTS
01/03/2012 ~ Iowa Caucus
Romney 24.6%; Santorum 24.5%; Paul 21.4%
Santorum won after a recount, by 34 votes
Santorum 24.6%; Romney 24.5%; Paul 21.4%
01/10/2012 ~ New Hampshire Primary
Romney 39.3%; Paul 22.9%; Huntsman 16.9%
01/21/2012 ~ South Carolina Primary
Gingrich 40.4%; Romney 27.8%; Santorum 17.0%
01/31/2012 ~ Florida Primary
Romney 46.4%; Gingrich 31.9%; Santorum 13.4%
02/04/2012 ~ Nevada Caucus
Romney 50.0%; Gingrich 21.1%; Paul 18.7%
02/07/2012 ~ Colorado Caucus
Santorum 40.2%; Romney 34.9%; Gingrich 12.8%
02/07/2012 ~ Minnesota Caucus
Santorum 44.8%; Paul 27.2%; Romney 16.9%
02/07/2012 ~ Missouri Primary (non-binding)
Santorum 55.2%; Romney 25.3%; Paul 12.2%
02/04/2012-02/11/2012 ~ Maine Caucus
Results still pending!
02/28/2012 ~ Arizona Primary
Romney 47.3%; Santorum 26.6%; Gingrich 16.2%
02/28/2012 ~ Michigan Primary
Romney 41.1%; Santorum 37.9%; Paul 11.6%
02/29/2012 ~ Wyoming Caucuses
Romney 39%; Santorum 33%; Paul 20%
03/03/2012 ~ Washington Caucus
Romney 37.6%; Paul 24.8%; Santorum 23.8%
03/06/2012 ~ Super Tuesday
Alaska Caucus
Romney 32.4%; Santorum 29.2%; Paul 24%
Georgia Primary
Gingrich 47.2%; Romney 25.9%; Santorum 19.6%
Idaho Caucus
Romney 61.6%; Santorum 18.2%; Paul 18.1%
Massachusetts Primary
Romney 72.2%; Santorum 12%; Paul 9.5%
North Dakota Caucus
Santorum 39.7%; Paul 28.1%; Romney 23.7
Oklahoma Primary
Santorum 33.8%; Romney 28%; Gingrich 27.5%
Tennessee Primary
Santorum 37.2%; Romney 28.1%; Gingrich 23.9%
Texas Primary - postponed til May 29
Vermont Primary
Romney 39.8%; Paul 25.5%; Santorum 23.7%
Virginia Primary
Romney 59.5%; Paul 40.5%
-4/24/12
Original Post by dnrothx:
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
6 figures is not that great a settlement if they truly were harassed
...
What are you basing this judgment on?
The amounts awarded to victims of harassment who successfully sue.
They tend to get between $2 million and $95 million from juries.
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
Original Post by dnrothx:
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
6 figures is not that great a settlement if they truly were harassed
...
What are you basing this judgment on?
The amounts awarded to victims of harassment who successfully sue.
They tend to get between $2 million and $95 million from juries.
Something tells me you just Googled "sexual harassment awards" and ended up with a list of outliers.
That's more interesting. So, they bring up a complaint, they're paid off in the tens of thousands, and told to leave the association.
It's that last bit that has me scratching my head. In my book, that makes the association look bad. "If you accuse our officers of sexual harassment, you're out of here."
Original Post by santonacci:
Original Post by kathygator:
plus, the long creepy smile at the end of his now famous ad is...creepy...
The new stuff is even better...
awesome.
I'm pretty knowledgeable about this subject.
$95 million is an outlier, but awards are usually in the millions.
Awards of $47 million or $25 million aren't that uncommon - there's lots of precedent.
Does your company have a policy? Does it carry insurance to protect them from this kind of behavior by their employees? It's not small potatoes.
Original Post by dnrothx:
That's more interesting. So, they bring up a complaint, they're paid off in the tens of thousands, and told to leave the association.
It's that last bit that has me scratching my head. In my book, that makes the association look bad. "If you accuse our officers of sexual harassment, you're out of here."
This was in the 90s. Herman Cain says he had no idea the women were paid off. If he's telling the truth about that, I bet the association's lawyers were trying to cover their butts from both a sexual harassment suit and possibly a discrimination suit.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
I'm pretty knowledgeable about this subject.
$95 million is an outlier, but awards are usually in the millions.
Awards of $47 million or $25 million aren't that uncommon - there's lots of precedent.
Nomo, I'm glad you think you are knowledgeable about the subject.
Until you produce conclusions not based upon a biased sample (i.e., based upon all awards and not just those reported in the media), I'm not buying this.
I don't have time to find that information documented, since the jury awards from trials conducted in hundreds of different jurisdictions are not compiled in one neat location.
If I had LexisNexis, I could find it easily, but you wouldn't be able to access it unless you had it too.
Luckily, I don't need you to buy it.
:)
Looks like I missed an interesting discussion this morning.
Politico reporter Jonathan Martin, who co-wrote their article on Herman Cain, told MSNBC this morning that he just isn't "going to get into the details" (wtf??) of what Cain allegedly said, did or "gestured." He claimed that it would be "insensitive" to the women involved, and he and Politico just doesn't want to upset them. It's laughable, really.
I mean, when it comes to a presidential candidate, when has the media every cared about being "insensitive"?? Please. The lack of details makes it super shady.
Original Post by crazineko:
He claimed that it would be "insensitive" to the women involved, and he and Politico just doesn't want to upset them.
Um, yeah, that is quite laughable.
Although I will point out that it's possible for the claims to be genuine and this still be their story. They also don't want to get sued. "Sensitive" here is likely being used in place of "CYA."
After what happened to Anita Hill, I think an argument could be made for sensitivity. Just sayin'.
Sure. An arguement could be made for it. However, it would be a very weak one. The media doesn't care about sensitivity when dealing with the president or a presidental canidate and an aleged sex scandle. Never has and never will. They care for a story, yeah?
And, just the overall vegueness of the "story" is weird. I mean, if you are going to write a piece like that about a canidate, you've got to know people will want details and be able to provide them. Geesh.
So are you suggesting the story is not true?
Well, it's only been 24 hours. So far, here is what I think:
I think two women accused him of something. What? Who knows! According to the article it could have been a simple pat on the back that was taken out of context. I think an investigation was done, and it was found to be baseless due to lack of evidence, or a simple case of he said she said. I think they received some kind of a severance package because the company felt it was likely the cheapest way to go and to make sure they weren't sued in the future.
It's just really vague and merky, though. There just really isn't any juice to it.
Heh. Welcome to the Warm Fuzzie club of presidential politics....
Where nothing is clear and everything is merky? True enough!
Murky is right. Rove has weighed in with the advice that Cain should come clean. Now Cain thinks he does remember the settlement.
*puts a fin on Rove as the mastermind here*
Original Post by kathygator:
Murky is right. Rove has weighed in with the advice that Cain should come clean. Now Cain thinks he does remember the settlement.
*puts a fin on Rove as the mastermind here*
Psst. Herman. With a friend like Rove, who needs enemies?
For being such a proven, smart leader, Cain appears surpisingly adept at not knowing what's going on in the organizations that he's leading.
I'm interested what's going to shake out with the campaign finance thing.
Hint: Cain isn't slowing down yet.
The side effects of allergy medications keep some people from using them. Natural remedies can be a great alternative, but some are more effective than others.
