Corporate support won’t stick around for long. If SGK is a pariah to most women the corporations will flee faster than any cure racer.

Being tagged as anti-choice has a negative impact on the bottom line in the female demographic.

In the 2008 Iowa caucus Democrats had 55,000 caucusers 17-29, Reps had 13,000. In 2012 Reps had 18,000 Iowa caucusers 17-29. Youth don’t make up much of the Republican base, and Paul got most of his votes from people over 45.

The Prospect has a better analysis of Ron Paul’s votes by Charles Stewart, Paul picked up the Huckabee voters in IA and NH. If you call it the Huckabee coalition you get closer to the truth without as much craziness.

http://prospect.org/article/romney-should-thank-his-rivals-his-big-win

Ron Paul is a significantly more racist, homophobic, anti-semitic and misogynist version of Pat Buchanan. Substantively the two are very close, both were outspoken in their opposition to the Iraq war and American imperialism. No liberal could support either candidate.

People who are attracted to candidates like Nader, Buchanan or Paul are generally political neophytes. They have yet to think through the implications of their political beliefs, and so have not developed the critical filter that would prevent them from falling for demagogues. They hear what they want to hear on a couple of key points and go with their gut. Some go on to incorporate the bigoted world-view that underlies Ron Paul’s politics and become full-fledged reactionaries like him, or they come to a more sophisticated understanding and become Republicans. It is unusual to go from a sympathetic understanding of Ron Paul’s politics to any form of liberalism, because his politics are incoherent unless founded on bigotry.

There appear to be many people who were seduced by Obama’s rhetoric and missed his substantive political positions, not realizing that he was the most conservative Democratic candidate in the field. In their disappointment they may be tempted to fall for the next person saying what they want to hear. But they shouldn’t make the same mistake twice, a politician’s substantive positions matter more than their sound-bites.

The problem I have with bravenewclimate is that they have been completely wrong on so many engineering details. For instance:

most decay heat occurs over minutes and hours, with cold shutdown within a few days

Wrong, cold shutdown can take months.

There is no critical nuclear reaction occurring in any of these reactors, and it CANNOT reinitiate as all neutron-absorbing control rods are grounded.

Wrong, in a meltdown the reaction can re-ignite. Also nobody knows if the rods were in fact grounded.

This process decreased the temperature of the fuel rods to a non-damaging level. Because the reactor had been shut down a long time ago, the decay heat had decreased to a significantly lower level, so the pressure in the plant stabilized, and venting was no longer required.

Wrong, and related to the misunderstanding in the first quote. None of the three reactors have stabilized.

The author has yet to address the risk posed by the spent fuel rods stored at each reactor. Those are the likely source of the radioactive contamination spreading over the area. Nor has he addressed the structural weaknesses in the reactors at risk of meltdown.

In case after case he edits out engineering information that would give you a more accurate picture of the risk, and so anyone believing his blog would be constantly surprised at developments in Japan.

Microsoft? Interesting contrast with the last Democratic administration. Clinton beefed up anti-trust at DOJ and anticompetitive investigations from the FCC, one of fruits of which was a massive investigation of Microsoft’s monopolistic and anticompetitive behavior. We have those efforts to thank for U.S. technological dominance of the Internet.

Too big to fail is too big to compete.