• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Romney wins pivotal Michigan primary as well as Arizona

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
DEARBORN, Mich.--Mitt Romney secured an important win Tuesday night over Rick Santorum in Michigan, in addition to handily winning Arizona one week before Super Tuesday.


"We didn't win by a lot, but we won by enough, and that's all that counts," Romney told a crowd gathered at his victory party in Novi, Mich.
Click to expand...

Romney's victory in Michigan is due to 2 factors:

1) Santorum's extremism

2) Voters felt that Romney was the most electable.

And now, Romney is back on top.

Article is here.

And now, for a little something extra. LOL.

395910_396686707023513_108038612554992_1528737_1632000242_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nice pic. And I'm not surprised. Somehow I felt Santorum wasn't gonna win.
 
About what I expected to happen. Of course a Romney nomination ensures 4 more years of Obimbo as much as a Santorum nomination does, so it's really a race for First Loser come November.
 
Tigger said:
About what I expected to happen. Of course a Romney nomination ensures 4 more years of Obimbo as much as a Santorum nomination does, so it's really a race for First Loser come November.
Click to expand...

Who can beat Obama?
 
Blue_State said:
Who can beat Obama?
Click to expand...

I don't believe there is a Republican nominee who can. That is mostly because the Republican party has no singular philosophical base to depend on at this time. The Conservatives will not vote for a Romneyesque candidate and the Centrist/Moderate wing will not vote for a Santoum-type. That means the party cannot stand united behind any candidate and will therefore continue to lose until one faction or the other is removed from the equation by being cast out of the party.
 
danarhea said:
Romney's victory in Michigan is due to 2 factors:

1) Santorum's extremism

2) Voters felt that Romney was the most electable.
Click to expand...

Interesting but stereotypical dana anaylsis here.

Let me take a different spin however.

This is Romney's home state, one in which his father was governor of, and one in which he won handedly 4 years ago. The very fact he won by only 3% of the vote should not be cause to celebrate singularly but also a cause for worry. There's as much there to suggest that it wasn't Santorum's "Extremism" itself that thwarted his ability to overtake Romney but rather a matter of tactics...going more heavily into the Social realm of things then the economic message he was pushing a bit earlier (one of my big issues with him that I figured would start showing up), a poor debate performance, and a call out to Democratics that put off some republican voters.

Still, despite Romney's "electability" and Santorum's "Extremism", Romney managed to only win by 3% in a shoo-in state like Michigan. That's not a good sign for him even if the end result is beneficial.
 
Tigger said:
I don't believe there is a Republican nominee who can. That is mostly because the Republican party has no singular philosophical base to depend on at this time. The Conservatives will not vote for a Romneyesque candidate and the Centrist/Moderate wing will not vote for a Santoum-type. That means the party cannot stand united behind any candidate and will therefore continue to lose until one faction or the other is removed from the equation by being cast out of the party.
Click to expand...

If Romney wins, I can't see conservatives voting for Obama. I agree that Santoum is unelectable. I just don't believe there will be a mass exodus if Romney wins. Conservatives will still vote, and when they are faced with one lever for Romney, and another for Obama, they are going to pull the Romney lever.
 
Blue_State said:
If Romney wins, I can't see conservatives voting for Obama. I agree that Santoum is unelectable. I just don't believe there will be a mass exodus if Romney wins. Conservatives will still vote, and when they are faced with one lever for Romney, and another for Obama, they are going to pull the Romney lever.
Click to expand...

This assumes they turn out, it assumes they provide the donation levels needed to combat Obama, this assumes that they provide the boots on the ground to spread the campaign message to others, etc.

All poor assumptions I believe. I think Romney will function much like McCain pre-Palin. Lack of enthusiasm leading to lacking in likely turnout, lacking in fundraising, and lacking in word of mouth campaigning by his supporters.
 
Blue_State said:
If Romney wins, I can't see conservatives voting for Obama. I agree that Santoum is unelectable. I just don't believe there will be a mass exodus if Romney wins. Conservatives will still vote, and when they are faced with one lever for Romney, and another for Obama, they are going to pull the Romney lever.
Click to expand...

I can't see myself voting for Obama under any circumstances either. I know that I will likely end up voting for a third party candidate, like I did 4 years ago. Either that or I will end up writing my own name in on the ballot. I will NOT vote for a LIBERAL, regardless of what party their are a member of. I truly believe that many WILL stay home, and a large percentage of those who don't, will vote for an independent candidate. Either way, they take votes away from Romney, thereby helping Obama.
 
Zyphlin said:
This assumes they turn out, it assumes they provide the donation levels needed to combat Obama, this assumes that they provide the boots on the ground to spread the campaign message to others, etc.

All poor assumptions I believe. I think Romney will function much like McCain pre-Palin. Lack of enthusiasm leading to lacking in likely turnout, lacking in fundraising, and lacking in word of mouth campaigning by his supporters.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Zyphlin.
 
Zyphlin said:
Interesting but stereotypical dana anaylsis here.

Let me take a different spin however.

This is Romney's home state, one in which his father was governor of, and one in which he won handedly 4 years ago. The very fact he won by only 3% of the vote should not be cause to celebrate singularly but also a cause for worry. There's as much there to suggest that it wasn't Santorum's "Extremism" itself that thwarted his ability to overtake Romney but rather a matter of tactics...going more heavily into the Social realm of things then the economic message he was pushing a bit earlier (one of my big issues with him that I figured would start showing up), a poor debate performance, and a call out to Democratics that put off some republican voters.

Still, despite Romney's "electability" and Santorum's "Extremism", Romney managed to only win by 3% in a shoo-in state like Michigan. That's not a good sign for him even if the end result is beneficial.
Click to expand...

i think santorum LOST michigan by his weird behavior in the last 2 weeks. really, JFK? STUPID.
 
danarhea said:
Romney's victory in Michigan is due to 2 factors:

1) Santorum's extremism

2) Voters felt that Romney was the most electable.

And now, Romney is back on top.

Article is here.

And now, for a little something extra. LOL.

View attachment 67123160
Click to expand...

I would add
1- a very poor debate performance from Arizona by Santorum
2- the money of Romney and his four or five to one TV buys in the big turnout areas
3- the establishment party organization backing him almost completely over Santorum
4- a strong turnout in Oakland County
 
Zyphlin said:
This assumes they turn out, it assumes they provide the donation levels needed to combat Obama, this assumes that they provide the boots on the ground to spread the campaign message to others, etc.

All poor assumptions I believe. I think Romney will function much like McCain pre-Palin. Lack of enthusiasm leading to lacking in likely turnout, lacking in fundraising, and lacking in word of mouth campaigning by his supporters.
Click to expand...

That really wasn't my point. If a conservative shows up to the poll, they are going to vote against Obama. Plain and simple. The success of the campaign, well, I said it a year ago. Who do the republicans have to run against Obama? No one.
 
Zyphlin said:
Interesting but stereotypical dana anaylsis here.

Let me take a different spin however.

This is Romney's home state, one in which his father was governor of, and one in which he won handedly 4 years ago. The very fact he won by only 3% of the vote should not be cause to celebrate singularly but also a cause for worry. There's as much there to suggest that it wasn't Santorum's "Extremism" itself that thwarted his ability to overtake Romney but rather a matter of tactics...going more heavily into the Social realm of things then the economic message he was pushing a bit earlier (one of my big issues with him that I figured would start showing up), a poor debate performance, and a call out to Democratics that put off some republican voters.

Still, despite Romney's "electability" and Santorum's "Extremism", Romney managed to only win by 3% in a shoo-in state like Michigan. That's not a good sign for him even if the end result is beneficial.
Click to expand...
i agree with your analysis....only won by 3% in a state in which he has a family history....he should definitely be worried.
 
randel said:
i agree with your analysis....only won by 3% in a state in which he has a family history....he should definitely be worried.
Click to expand...

Well, you know Al Gore lost his home state and still managed to.....OK, he should worry.

With Super Tuesday coming up, it's Romney's to lose now. Santorum doesn't seem to have the organization or the resources to put the full court press on in that many states at once.
 
Tigger said:
I can't see myself voting for Obama under any circumstances either. I know that I will likely end up voting for a third party candidate, like I did 4 years ago. Either that or I will end up writing my own name in on the ballot. I will NOT vote for a LIBERAL, regardless of what party their are a member of. I truly believe that many WILL stay home, and a large percentage of those who don't, will vote for an independent candidate. Either way, they take votes away from Romney, thereby helping Obama.
Click to expand...

I just don't get this mentallity coming from some people in the right. So just because Romney is not far right enough or conservative enough by some people's standards, they will simply give Obama another 4 year victory by voting for a third party. Instead they can't look at a Romney win as an advanced move towards the center which is by far lesser of the two evils as a far left government.

This mentality is the exact same that handed Reid his victory during the 2010 election and placed the unelectable Christine O'Donne to lose in Deleware.
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
i think santorum LOST michigan by his weird behavior in the last 2 weeks. really, JFK? STUPID.
Click to expand...

Indeed. By the same token, he wasn't any less of an "extremist" in the 2 to 4 weeks prior to that when he went from way down to actually looking like a potential winner of Michigan.

Which is why I think his "extremism" wasn't so much what cost him as it was his handling of his message and the things that his camp were putting out there / not managing well when they got out there.
 
Blue_State said:
That really wasn't my point. If a conservative shows up to the poll, they are going to vote against Obama. Plain and simple. The success of the campaign, well, I said it a year ago. Who do the republicans have to run against Obama? No one.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree. IF a GOP/Conservative voter goes to the ballot box the most likely candidate they're going to vote for is the person on the Republican ticket. The issue however is whether or not they make it out ot the ballot box. And there are far more things that influence a campaign and what votes you're going to be getting before you even get to voting day that also hurts Romney.
 
Zyphlin said:
Indeed. By the same token, he wasn't any less of an "extremist" in the 2 to 4 weeks prior to that when he went from way down to actually looking like a potential winner of Michigan.

Which is why I think his "extremism" wasn't so much what cost him as it was his handling of his message and the things that his camp were putting out there / not managing well when they got out there.
Click to expand...

true, he's always been extreme. but the more he expands on his views, the less more people are going to look sideways at him. everybody KNOWs he's a practicing catholic with strict views, he needs to focus on the other issues, and do it well. there's a theory that newt will throw his support santorum, what do you think about that?
 
Zyphlin said:
Indeed. By the same token, he wasn't any less of an "extremist" in the 2 to 4 weeks prior to that when he went from way down to actually looking like a potential winner of Michigan.

Which is why I think his "extremism" wasn't so much what cost him as it was his handling of his message and the things that his camp were putting out there / not managing well when they got out there.
Click to expand...

I think what hurt him was simply the fact that more people were paying attention to what he's been saying all along. Sort of like all the other nonRomney's before him.
 
Sparky said:
I just don't get this mentallity coming from some people in the right. So just because Romney is not far right enough or conservative enough by some people's standards, they will simply give Obama another 4 year victory by voting for a third party. Instead they can't look at a Romney win as an advanced move towards the center which is by far lesser of the two evils as a far left government.

This mentality is the exact same that handed Reid his victory during the 2010 election and placed the unelectable Christine O'Donne to lose in Deleware.
Click to expand...

Sparky, on a philosophical level I see no real difference between Barrack Hussein Obama and Willard Mitt Romney. There are two types of people in my philosophical world.... Conservatives and Everyone Else. I will not vote for ANYONE who falls into that Everyone Else category. That's why I so rarely vote for more than one or two candidates on any ballot; because nobody in any of the other races fits my criteria to vote for them.

There is no such thing as a Lesser Evil. There is only Good and Evil. If you don't meet the criteria for Good you're Evil by definition. Besides, I'd rather have someone I KNOW is my enemy 100% of the time in office than someone whose motives and actions I can't predict the quality of.
 
Romney has staying power, if little else. Even although he is never going to be "one of us" as far as the Republican hierarchy are concerned, one by one, his opponents surge and fall back. This time his narrow win only ensures that the division and infighting will continue, as Santorum and the others still see a slim chance of toppling him from top spot. It was a good night for the President.
 
Tigger said:
About what I expected to happen. Of course a Romney nomination ensures 4 more years of Obimbo as much as a Santorum nomination does, so it's really a race for First Loser come November.
Click to expand...

What's an "Obimbo"?
 
liblady said:
true, he's always been extreme. but the more he expands on his views, the less more people are going to look sideways at him. everybody KNOWs he's a practicing catholic with strict views, he needs to focus on the other issues, and do it well. there's a theory that newt will throw his support santorum, what do you think about that?
Click to expand...

I could see it after Super Tuesday. It's more likely Newt will support Santorum than Romney. I wouldn't count out him supporting Paul over Santorum though strangely enough. Not highly likely, but I think not out of the question.

And I agree. Santorum has to stay on an economic message first and foremost, but he's so fervently and honestly believes his social views and how important they are that he himself veers off track often and more than that he's prone to take any and every bit of bait that leads him off track. Social Issues for him is kind of the equivilent of being snarky and angry for Newt. When Newt gets attacked and upset he can't control himself not to lash our and go snarky rather than trying to stay on an issue driven positive message. Similarly, when people begin to bait Santorum with any social issue he can't help himself from running off the cliff with it.

What I found funny recently was his whining about Ron Paul targetting him instead of the others. That's likely because there's been no one of the remaining other 3 whose gone at Ron Paul more and harsher, and thus it makes sense that's who he'd go after. He's also the guy at the top currently who Paul has the best chance of possibly courting some voters from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom