Super Tuesday, 06 Mar 2012

Pinkie said:

O, picky, picky, picky.

LOL.

Click to expand...

You're right, it's an error irrelevant to the argument, but I just couldn't resist pointing it out. :lol:

Zyphlin said:

When an "unelectable", "not serious", "extreme", "crazy" candidate like Ron Paul is a viable enough alternative to Romney to garner 40% of the vote in a "moderate" state like Virginia it tells you something major about the enthusiasm around Romney, his ability to excite the base into voting, and be embraced.

Click to expand...

I remember hearing from CNN exit poll that 64% of independents were voting for Paul in Virgina. Paul usually does the best with independents, just he doesn't receive support from his own party. :-( Limbooger and fox made sure people stay clear from him and push Santorum or Newt. They went to Tim Plawently, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Newt, then Santo... all-star clown team.

Florida, Michigan and now Ohio. And the story is ever the same. Romney starts out significantly behind... he outspends his rival five or six or ten to one.... he uses the establishment GOP party structure to get him organized on the ground ...... he gets the support and endorsements of local leaders and officials ....... he attacks without mercy ....... and he wins in the end. Along the way his main opponent helps Romney with stupid commercials of their won which do more harm than good and in the case of Santorum gets involved in social issues costing him votes with women voters that cost him.

In November - NONE of those ingredients will be there for Romney - NONE of them. You do not have to be Teddy White to see this narrative playing out.

tecoyah said:

There will be no clear winner...so it's back to a Romney/Santorum slugfest....big surprise.

Click to expand...

I rest my case....these guys are doing the Democrats job for them

In the last election cycle, in Ohio, when it was just McCain v. Huckabee, McCain trounced Huckabee real bad. McCain won 54.6% of the popular vote in Ohio, Huckaby came to 32.4%, Romney had by that time already thrown his towel into the ring and only got 5.2%

This time around, it was a four way horse race (in theory) with Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul, this time the results were:

Willard M. "Mitt" Romney 453,927 38%
Richard John "Rick" Santorum 441,908 37%
Newton L. "Newt" Gingrich 174,606 15%
Ronald Ernest Paul 110,633 9%

If Romney with all of his money, or better yet, his rich buddies money (the Restore Our Future superpac) hadn't outspent Santorum by about 1.3 million, Romney could have easily lost. Problem is, I doubt he will have such an edge over Obama when it comes to money spent on advertising.

When one looks at the amount of votes Romney got, the 454,000, one has to remember that Obama took from Cuyahoga county alone almost 442,000 votes. That does not look promising for Romneys chances at the general election IMHO.

haymarket said:

Florida, Michigan and now Ohio. And the story is ever the same. Romney starts out significantly behind... he outspends his rival five or six or ten to one.... he uses the establishment GOP party structure to get him organized on the ground ...... he gets the support and endorsements of local leaders and officials ....... he attacks without mercy ....... and he wins in the end. Along the way his main opponent helps Romney with stupid commercials of their won which do more harm than good and in the case of Santorum gets involved in social issues costing him votes with women voters that cost him.

In November - NONE of those ingredients will be there for Romney - NONE of them. You do not have to be Teddy White to see this narrative playing out.

Click to expand...

Gingrich needs to drop out now. Winning his home state is expected. He lost all the other battles on Tuesday.

If Gingrich drops out, Santorum wins more of his battles with Romney.

For the good of the conservative movement, Gingrich needs to drop out.

haymarket said:

Florida, Michigan and now Ohio. And the story is ever the same. Romney starts out significantly behind... he outspends his rival five or six or ten to one.... he uses the establishment GOP party structure to get him organized on the ground ...... he gets the support and endorsements of local leaders and officials ....... he attacks without mercy ....... and he wins in the end. Along the way his main opponent helps Romney with stupid commercials of their won which do more harm than good and in the case of Santorum gets involved in social issues costing him votes with women voters that cost him.

In November - NONE of those ingredients will be there for Romney - NONE of them. You do not have to be Teddy White to see this narrative playing out.

Click to expand...

he scrapes out a meager victory in the end I would say. Not something to write home about or boast about. Someone like Romney should be able to smash a conservative like Santorum in Ohio, yet he was unable to do that.

Catawba said:

Correct, but he was a Senate candidate that year when he publicly spoke out in opposition to war with Iraq:

"Obama was not yet in the Senate when Congress voted to authorize the use of force in the fall of 2002. But he spoke out against it as a Senate candidate that year."

Obama Flexes Anti-Iraq War Credentials - ABC News

Click to expand...

So what? Obama also spoke out against increasing the deficit.

haymarket said:

Florida, Michigan and now Ohio. And the story is ever the same. Romney starts out significantly behind... he outspends his rival five or six or ten to one.... he uses the establishment GOP party structure to get him organized on the ground ...... he gets the support and endorsements of local leaders and officials ....... he attacks without mercy ....... and he wins in the end. Along the way his main opponent helps Romney with stupid commercials of their won which do more harm than good and in the case of Santorum gets involved in social issues costing him votes with women voters that cost him.

In November - NONE of those ingredients will be there for Romney - NONE of them. You do not have to be Teddy White to see this narrative playing out.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter anyways because the Republican base continues to try to pander to left wing moderates and independents with these left wing candidates instead of trying to pander to the RIGHT wing moderates and independents, resulting in democrat wins. Why would ANYONE vote for Romney when they can vote for Obama? His rhetoric is different? Give me a break.

The primary fight itself doesn't hurt Republicans at all. It is the campaigning to the most ultra rightwing evangelicals and "conservatives" that is killing the Republicans.
Our household an example. It was 3 votes Republican and 1 for Obama before this primary. Now it is 4 for Obama. It has NOTHING to do with the primary fight. It has to with the "social" and "civil rights" issues. Obviously I'm not going to vote for a political party whose primary agenda is built on open condemnations and hatred of my people and myself. In general, I would not vote for a candidate whose affiliation is foremost with a religious party, not a political party.
I am seeing this reversal across many lines. From school age to seniors. I also think THAT is the reason for lack of enthusiam. MOST church members don't show up for church voters meeting as an analogy. The number of women, wives, girlfriends, significant others and daughters using contraceptives is the overwhelming majority of women, and most the men want them to. With all Republicans agreeing that companies can remove contraceptives from health insurance, I think their chances at the White House in November, short of massive economic collapse, went to zero.

Between that condemnation of women and the other always growing list of people the Republican candidates condemn - poor people, gays, anyone who isn't a Christian... and pretty much all women - this has to be stupidest campaign I've seen. To start by declaring outright social contempt as moral condemnations of 65-70% of voters. As the Republicans continue to tell ever increasing numbers of voters "We Republicans think you are sinful, immoral rotten people" it no surprise an increasing number of voters respond back "We don't like you either."

Republic Now! said:

So what? Obama also spoke out against increasing the deficit.

Click to expand...

And just like Obama followed through in ending the Iraq war when Romney thought it was too soon. Obama is the only viable candidate with a plan to reduce the deficit. Romney's plan increases the deficit through the increased military spending and increased tax cuts for the rich he has proposed, vs Obama's plan to decrease military spending and increase revenues.

I've had quite enough of the trickle down economics the GOP has pushed for the last 30 years, so thanks, but no thanks.

Catawba said:

And just like Obama followed through in ending the Iraq war

Click to expand...

Lol, Obama "followed through" in ending the Iraq war by letting the Bush plan happen.

when Romney thought it was too soon.

Click to expand...

Romney talks crap and smears despite his own actions; he's like Obama's long lost brother.

Obama is the only viable candidate with a plan to reduce the deficit.

Click to expand...

Which plan is that? I know his "budget" would theoretically increase the deficit less than it would have increased otherwise, but that's not really "reducing the deficit."

Romney's plan increases the deficit through the increased military spending and increased tax cuts for the rich he has proposed, vs Obama's plan to decrease military spending and increase revenues.

Click to expand...

If we cut military spending to 0, and increase revenues to 100% of income of all people making 250k or more, would the deficit problem be solved? If those extremes won't work, why would anything in between?

I've had quite enough of the trickle down economics the GOP has pushed for the last 30 years, so thanks, but no thanks.

Click to expand...

Defense spending is trickle down economics?

Republic Now! said:

Romney talks crap and smears despite his own actions; he's like Obama's long lost brother.

Click to expand...

Obama and Romney are the only two choices. I pick the one that wanted to end the Iraq war rather than the one that wanted to keep it going.



Which plan is that? I know his "budget" would theoretically increase the deficit less than it would have increased otherwise, but that's not really "reducing the deficit."

If we cut military spending to 0, and increase revenues to 100% of income of all people making 250k or more, would the deficit problem be solved? If those extremes won't work, why would anything in between?


"WASHINGTON – A centrist budget-watchdog group is punching trillion-dollar holes in the claims of Republican presidential candidates that they would rein in the mounting federal debt if elected, according to an analysis to be released on Thursday.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a group of former members of Congress, former administration officials, budget experts and business leaders of both parties, analyzed each candidate’s agenda under three scenarios – most optimistic, intermediate and most pessimistic, depending on the specificity of the candidates’ proposals. It found that all four men remaining in the Republican race would increase annual budget deficits beyond what is currently projected, under at least one of the scenarios studied."
Study Tests Claims of Republican Candidates' Debt Plans - NYTimes.com

Defense spending is trickle down economics?

Click to expand...

Excessive military spending began in 1981, under Reaganomics, is responsible of most of our national debt, and Romney is proposing increasing spending on it, at the same time he cuts revenues.

That is the exact same way the GOP has increased the national debt for the last 30 years.