Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
The US GOP Primary Results/Prediction thread [UPDATE: Santorum suspends campaign]

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 22 NEXT
 

It's 2012! You Know what that means: the 2012 US Presidential Race is only 11 months away. So here's your unofficial official thread for all your primary result coverage.

Let's look at the primary contest:

The Candidates:


The Contests

(Will be updated with results after the contest dates)

Most Recent Results [UPDATED WITH EACH CONTEST]

D.C. Primary: 19 Delegates Total

Results:
Mitt Romney: 3,122 (70.2%) - 18 Delegates
Ron Paul: 535 (12.0%) - 0 Delegates
Newt Gingrich: 477 (10.7%) - 0 Delegates
Rick Santorum: [not on ballot] (0%) - 0 Delegates

Wisconsin Primary: 42 Delegates Total

Results: (97%)
Mitt Romney: 346,279 (44.1%) - 30 Delegates
Rick Santorum: 289,648 (36.9%) - 6 Delegates
Ron Paul: 87,896 (11.2%) - 0 Delegates
Newt Gingrich: 45,944 (5.8%) - 0 Delegates

Maryland Primary: 37 Delegates Total

Results:
Mitt Romney: 116,922 (49.1%) - 37 Delegates
Rick Santorum: 68,848 (28.9%) - 10 Delegates
Newt Gingrich: 25,967 (10.9%) - 0 Delegates
Ron Paul: 22,649 (9.5%) - 0 Delegates

So let this be your official destination for GOP primary results and general discussion.

EDIT: I've knocked the poll out as I can't reset it for a different question.

EDIT 2: I've shortened the title to accommodate larger title updates.

Huntsman or Romney would be the safest choices in terms of how they would do if elected president. The others scare me. A lot.

Romney is so getting the nomination, it is not even funny. If anyone else does, I will... listen to an entire Justin Beiber album. You heard me, an entire album, from start to finish.

So please Mitt, win this one. His music makes me gag. :(

They're murmuring that Ron Paul stands a chance in Ohio. This kinda scares me - Ron Paul is probably the best contender among the republicans, but he's also the contender most likely to draw votes from those who either aren't voting or are currently voting Obama. What scares me about this? "Best contender among the republicans" is like "least evil 1940s Fascist Dictator" - even if you're the best, it doesn't make you good.

I thought Gingrich had the best chance back when he took a commanding lead in the polls, as long as he didn't do anything really stupid.....then he said the Supreme Court rulings are for pussies.

As it has been said, Romney is going to win because of his tactic of sitting back and being a conservative instead of being bat shit crazy.

*Flame shield activated*

Ron Paul is the one I want to be president, being the only one both committed (and maybe insane enough) to curb our debt and get us out of the Middle East (and stop us from going to Iran, which we are making a nose dive towards).

Romney, however, looks like the one who is going to be the nominee. However, the shifts in Iowa show that it is really anybody's game.

Baring something absurd, it will be Mitt Romney. If he wins Iowa then it will become even more of a certainty.

it will be romney, assuming he keeps his strategy of shutting the fuck up. its all a moot point though because none of them can beat obama

Seekster:
Baring something absurd, it will be Mitt Romney. If he wins Iowa then it will become even more of a certainty.

Cain and Gringirch proves if nothing else that even a VERY popular canidate can fall if a conterversy arises.

Damn Ron Paul fans. The title is who do you think will win, not who do you think will fuck over the country the best.

Only in America could you run for public office with the promise of doing nothing at all. As Bill Maher said, for a group of people who say laziness is to blame for all the problems, they sure take a lazy approach to governance.

I find it strange that out of all the places Ron Paul could gather support, the Internet is one of them. Surely out of all the people, those who use the web should be the most aware of what happens with freedom. It does not create a productive society, it just creates dick swinging matches.

Seekster:
Baring something absurd, it will be Mitt Romney. If he wins Iowa then it will become even more of a certainty.

While I agree that he will be the eventual nominee and he will win Iowa, although narrowly, Iowa doesn't mean jack shit anymore to those who follow politics. Considering that they are a rather rural state with much of their exports being agricultural, not to mention the extremely high number of devout evangelical Christians who reside there, it makes the state very out of touch with the rest of America. It will more depend on his performance in New Hampshire and South Carolina that will cement his status as nominee apparent.

I think looking at Iowa, look for Santorum and Paul to do well but Santorum will fade quickly, as he won't have the same level of support from evangelicals in later states, and because he lacks the organization in other states to run a proper campaign.

Paul will look strong but will fizzle out the more time he is given, due to the less than popular views he espouses.

Iowa will be where Bachmann's campaign will end,

we see Gingrich's ship really starts to take on water after Iowa, expect him to limp through to Nevada, where if he doesn't do well (provided he gets some sort of boost in Florida where he is polling tied with Romney) he is going to drop out.

Huntsman needs to do exceptionally well in New Hampshire, I'm think a second place finish, to have any hope, but I don't think it will be enough, expect him to be out by Nevada as well.

As a side note, I'd like to mention just how disappointed I am the my state, the fine state of Washington has cancelled our primary and will just be using the caucus. Sure this is done as a cost cutting measure, and sure the primary didn't actually effect anything and was entirely superfluous as the results of the caucus were all that was counted, but damn it, we liked our special system, and Its a shame we won't be having it this year.

The Gentleman:
snip

Just a note, Santorum is from Pennsylvania, not Minnesota.

GrimTuesday:

The Gentleman:
snip

Just a note, Santorum is from Pennsylvania, not Minnesota.

Fixed.

Not G. Ivingname:

Seekster:
Baring something absurd, it will be Mitt Romney. If he wins Iowa then it will become even more of a certainty.

Cain and Gringirch proves if nothing else that even a VERY popular canidate can fall if a conterversy arises.

Mitt Romney's problem isn't that he's popular. His problem is that around 75% of the republican electorate would rather have anyone other than him. They've gone over his record as much as they can and those who aren't completely turned off by his tenure as Massachusetts governor are not comfortable with him as the nominee.

I'm still guessing Romney. Paul is being demoted as we speak (suddenly winning in Iowa doesn't matter anymore), the GOP won't let him become the candidate, I think. Huntsman is far too reasonable to get the candidacy on Evangelical hot buttons like evolution and the big bang, so he's out. Newt has disqualified himself severely and would be too easy a target for the opposition. As for the others, they are unelectable and I think the GOP knows that. That leaves Romney.

Not G. Ivingname:

Seekster:
Baring something absurd, it will be Mitt Romney. If he wins Iowa then it will become even more of a certainty.

Cain and Gringirch proves if nothing else that even a VERY popular canidate can fall if a conterversy arises.

Thats just the thing, Romney has already been vetted and the best they could find was that at one point some illegal immigrants worked on his yard. If there is something worse than that out there then Romney is doing a very good job of hiding it.

Gingrich fell because he reminded people that he was Newt Gingrich (making all these crazy proposals especially regarding the Judicial Branch) that and his viability in a general election is none existent.

Cain fell more because his inexperience was starting to show through too much and he really mishandled the sexual assault allegations (accusing Perry of being behind it and then admitting he had no information to support that, etc).

Romney will ultimately win, to put it simply, because Romney is safe.

pyrate:
I thought Gingrich had the best chance back when he took a commanding lead in the polls, as long as he didn't do anything really stupid.....then he said the Supreme Court rulings are for pussies.

As it has been said, Romney is going to win because of his tactic of sitting back and being a conservative instead of being bat shit crazy.

I think he's specifically appealing towards youth voters, at least those on the internet. Look at the amount of articles saying "Ron Paul says SOPA/NDAA is bad" and other ones regarding homosexuality being fine, and non-violent drug use being ok.

OT: I think Romney would probably win, but either way America looks pretty screwed.

I love Romney's campaign because he stood strong when almost every other major candidate had a spike in popularity before falling off. He is the guy absolutely no one wants, and yet he's going to win the nomination because there hasn't been a single Republican candidate that could acquire real public support and hold onto it long enough to make it to Iowa. It's like rooting for a zombie robot from Mars that still thinks flaming Obamacare is doing himself a favor.

Serge A. Storms:
I love Romney's campaign because he stood strong when almost every other major candidate had a spike in popularity before falling off. He is the guy absolutely no one wants, and yet he's going to win the nomination because there hasn't been a single Republican candidate that could acquire real public support and hold onto it long enough to make it to Iowa. It's like rooting for a zombie robot from Mars that still thinks flaming Obamacare is doing himself a favor.

No there have always been people who want Romney, his RCP average has consistently been in the 25% to 16% range (in the national poll at least: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html )

I think some of the more die hard idealogues shrugged off Romney at first and in turn went to his opponents one after another as the possible alternative. First Bachmann seemed to get some traction (I am ignoring Trump because he was more of an early pre-show whose function was to sacrifice himself to put the idiotic birther conspiracy to rest, he never had any real chance) then Perry entered and sucked away all her support.

Then Perry seemed to forget that running for office in Texas and running for President of the United States are not the same thing (his early "Im a tough down home country boy" and "Texas is great" work well in Texas but they arent as dependable on the national stage). That combined with his poor debate performances hurt him badly. I like many Conservatives saw the dreaded "Oops" moment live and thought to myself "Dear God what if he does that during a debate with Obama?"

In their desperation many of Perry's supporters turned to Herman Cain who had been long seen as a nice guy whose down to earth ideas and his wit (I mean come on even if you don't like his politics the guy had some really funny lines). I still say Cain was a nice guy, but so was Jimmy Carter (at first). Neither of them have any business being President (unfortunately one of them did). What killed Cain more than anything was that when the media spotlight turned on him all of his inexperience swiftly became apparent and if Obama is proof of anything, its that having a President who is too inexperienced is often a bad idea. The sexual abuse allegations only heightened the spotlight on Cain and his mishandling of those allegations hurt him even more.

Finally we had Newt Gingrich. Newt is probably the most intelligent man on the stage and knows more about policy than anyone. He is a very skilled politician (having been able to go toe to toe with Bill Clinton who is probably the most skilled politician of his generation, though that is not meant as a compliment). His main drawback is that he is Newt Gingrich, a man who belongs more in the 90s than today and who has more baggage than any of the candidates by far, and who's brainy ideas can get him in trouble when he starts spouting off some of his less thought out plans (eg his designs on the Judicial Branch). I think what finally killed Gingrich (or I guess what is killing him) is that he is simply unelectable.

So that leaves us with Ron Paul (who is probably unelectable and who would be a great candidate if he wasnt crazy but wouldnt be Ron Paul if he was sane), Rick Santorum (who quite frankly is a jerk), John Huntsman (who quite frankly has little reason to even be in the race), and Mitt Romney (who to put it simply is safe). With Romney people know that he isnt going to freeze up on a debate stage, they know that he can run an effective Presidential campaign, they know that there is a very low likelihood of finding anymore skeletons in Romney's closet as it has basically been picked clean (though people are still looking). Most importantly Romney is the only candidate who everyone knows could beat Obama and at the end of the day that will get him a lot of votes.

Seekster:
snip

The anyone-but Romney train is currently on Santorum and he's surging out ahead of the other also-rans in current polls.

>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<
Filthy jokes aside it's a race between Romney and Newt with Newt only having a chance if Santorum/Perry/Bachmann all drop within the next week or so as polling shows that Newt would snap up their voters and put him level pegging/wining every state.

As for the primaries themselves it's a very small number of people that can sway it to any candidate simply due to how few people vote in the things as is (I believe the Iowa one was 120,000 in '08 and I don't expect more than that this year for example).

Seekster:

Serge A. Storms:
I love Romney's campaign because he stood strong when almost every other major candidate had a spike in popularity before falling off. He is the guy absolutely no one wants, and yet he's going to win the nomination because there hasn't been a single Republican candidate that could acquire real public support and hold onto it long enough to make it to Iowa. It's like rooting for a zombie robot from Mars that still thinks flaming Obamacare is doing himself a favor.

No there have always been people who want Romney, his RCP average has consistently been in the 25% to 16% range (in the national poll at least: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html )

I think some of the more die hard idealogues shrugged off Romney at first and in turn went to his opponents one after another as the possible alternative. First Bachmann seemed to get some traction (I am ignoring Trump because he was more of an early pre-show whose function was to sacrifice himself to put the idiotic birther conspiracy to rest, he never had any real chance) then Perry entered and sucked away all her support.

Then Perry seemed to forget that running for office in Texas and running for President of the United States are not the same thing (his early "Im a tough down home country boy" and "Texas is great" work well in Texas but they arent as dependable on the national stage). That combined with his poor debate performances hurt him badly. I like many Conservatives saw the dreaded "Oops" moment live and thought to myself "Dear God what if he does that during a debate with Obama?"

In their desperation many of Perry's supporters turned to Herman Cain who had been long seen as a nice guy whose down to earth ideas and his wit (I mean come on even if you don't like his politics the guy had some really funny lines). I still say Cain was a nice guy, but so was Jimmy Carter (at first). Neither of them have any business being President (unfortunately one of them did). What killed Cain more than anything was that when the media spotlight turned on him all of his inexperience swiftly became apparent and if Obama is proof of anything, its that having a President who is too inexperienced is often a bad idea. The sexual abuse allegations only heightened the spotlight on Cain and his mishandling of those allegations hurt him even more.

Finally we had Newt Gingrich. Newt is probably the most intelligent man on the stage and knows more about policy than anyone. He is a very skilled politician (having been able to go toe to toe with Bill Clinton who is probably the most skilled politician of his generation, though that is not meant as a compliment). His main drawback is that he is Newt Gingrich, a man who belongs more in the 90s than today and who has more baggage than any of the candidates by far, and who's brainy ideas can get him in trouble when he starts spouting off some of his less thought out plans (eg his designs on the Judicial Branch). I think what finally killed Gingrich (or I guess what is killing him) is that he is simply unelectable.

So that leaves us with Ron Paul (who is probably unelectable and who would be a great candidate if he wasnt crazy but wouldnt be Ron Paul if he was sane), Rick Santorum (who quite frankly is a jerk), John Huntsman (who quite frankly has little reason to even be in the race), and Mitt Romney (who to put it simply is safe). With Romney people know that he isnt going to freeze up on a debate stage, they know that he can run an effective Presidential campaign, they know that there is a very low likelihood of finding anymore skeletons in Romney's closet as it has basically been picked clean (though people are still looking). Most importantly Romney is the only candidate who everyone knows could beat Obama and at the end of the day that will get him a lot of votes.

I should have rephrased that, he's a guy that only has as many diehard's as any other minor candidate, and as with the last Presidential elections, the Republicans are going to have to end up getting behind a guy most of them weren't in favor of and many of them trashed before he became the nominee.

Personally I was hoping Newt got the nomination, I remember him from back when he was Speaker and he's the exact kind of piece of shit that could win the nomination, get murdered in the general election and convince the Republican party that its going to lose mainstream appeal if it keeps going like its going.

Serge A. Storms:

Seekster:

Serge A. Storms:
I love Romney's campaign because he stood strong when almost every other major candidate had a spike in popularity before falling off. He is the guy absolutely no one wants, and yet he's going to win the nomination because there hasn't been a single Republican candidate that could acquire real public support and hold onto it long enough to make it to Iowa. It's like rooting for a zombie robot from Mars that still thinks flaming Obamacare is doing himself a favor.

No there have always been people who want Romney, his RCP average has consistently been in the 25% to 16% range (in the national poll at least: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html )

I think some of the more die hard idealogues shrugged off Romney at first and in turn went to his opponents one after another as the possible alternative. First Bachmann seemed to get some traction (I am ignoring Trump because he was more of an early pre-show whose function was to sacrifice himself to put the idiotic birther conspiracy to rest, he never had any real chance) then Perry entered and sucked away all her support.

Then Perry seemed to forget that running for office in Texas and running for President of the United States are not the same thing (his early "Im a tough down home country boy" and "Texas is great" work well in Texas but they arent as dependable on the national stage). That combined with his poor debate performances hurt him badly. I like many Conservatives saw the dreaded "Oops" moment live and thought to myself "Dear God what if he does that during a debate with Obama?"

In their desperation many of Perry's supporters turned to Herman Cain who had been long seen as a nice guy whose down to earth ideas and his wit (I mean come on even if you don't like his politics the guy had some really funny lines). I still say Cain was a nice guy, but so was Jimmy Carter (at first). Neither of them have any business being President (unfortunately one of them did). What killed Cain more than anything was that when the media spotlight turned on him all of his inexperience swiftly became apparent and if Obama is proof of anything, its that having a President who is too inexperienced is often a bad idea. The sexual abuse allegations only heightened the spotlight on Cain and his mishandling of those allegations hurt him even more.

Finally we had Newt Gingrich. Newt is probably the most intelligent man on the stage and knows more about policy than anyone. He is a very skilled politician (having been able to go toe to toe with Bill Clinton who is probably the most skilled politician of his generation, though that is not meant as a compliment). His main drawback is that he is Newt Gingrich, a man who belongs more in the 90s than today and who has more baggage than any of the candidates by far, and who's brainy ideas can get him in trouble when he starts spouting off some of his less thought out plans (eg his designs on the Judicial Branch). I think what finally killed Gingrich (or I guess what is killing him) is that he is simply unelectable.

So that leaves us with Ron Paul (who is probably unelectable and who would be a great candidate if he wasnt crazy but wouldnt be Ron Paul if he was sane), Rick Santorum (who quite frankly is a jerk), John Huntsman (who quite frankly has little reason to even be in the race), and Mitt Romney (who to put it simply is safe). With Romney people know that he isnt going to freeze up on a debate stage, they know that he can run an effective Presidential campaign, they know that there is a very low likelihood of finding anymore skeletons in Romney's closet as it has basically been picked clean (though people are still looking). Most importantly Romney is the only candidate who everyone knows could beat Obama and at the end of the day that will get him a lot of votes.

I should have rephrased that, he's a guy that only has as many diehard's as any other minor candidate, and as with the last Presidential elections, the Republicans are going to have to end up getting behind a guy most of them weren't in favor of and many of them trashed before he became the nominee.

Personally I was hoping Newt got the nomination, I remember him from back when he was Speaker and he's the exact kind of piece of shit that could win the nomination, get murdered in the general election and convince the Republican party that its going to lose mainstream appeal if it keeps going like its going.

Yeah I doubt that would happen, the Newt thing causing the Republican party to have an epiphany. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have the misfortune of being political parties and thus, stupid and petty. If people don't like what they are doing a political party will find any excuse it can to explain why they are losing support. So no if it were Gingrich and he got killed in the general the Republicans would go "ah we never should have nominated Gingrich, we knew he had too much baggage." The Democrats seem to be busy doing something similar with Obama. I don't think the Democratic party realizes that the American people don't like their vision of America because of how it is portrayed but because of what it is (and to be fair most Americans don't completely like the Republican vision either, most of us want some mixture of the two). Its the nature of politics, there is little truth to be found in it.

I've been hoping for a Romney victory ever since this all started, and I may be getting my wish. I'm hoping his combo of real economic sense and sane(more than you can say for the rest of them) social views will get him the win. He has open primary states in the bag due to independents more likely siding with his moderate policies. If he doesn't win I'll have to vote for Obama because the other guys are nuts!

It will most likely be Romney, but as it has been pointed out, the subject is moot because they're all so far right, they have fallen off the perverbial politcal cliff and just don't have the appeal to the floating voters needed to win an election.

American politics is a funny thing, Republicans move further right in order carry on being able to hate the Democrats as their moving right in order to appease the Republicans, where as in the UK the main 3 parties have all moved so close together in order to appeal most to the floating voters, it's near impossible to tell them apart. Though in both countries the effect on voters is the same, it's putting them off in droves.

Shock and Awe:
I've been hoping for a Romney victory ever since this all started, and I may be getting my wish. I'm hoping his combo of real economic sense and sane(more than you can say for the rest of them) social views will get him the win. He has open primary states in the bag due to independents more likely siding with his moderate policies.

"Corporations are people".

Stagnant:

Shock and Awe:
I've been hoping for a Romney victory ever since this all started, and I may be getting my wish. I'm hoping his combo of real economic sense and sane(more than you can say for the rest of them) social views will get him the win. He has open primary states in the bag due to independents more likely siding with his moderate policies.

"Corporations are people".

Legally thats a true statement.

Seekster:

Stagnant:

Shock and Awe:
I've been hoping for a Romney victory ever since this all started, and I may be getting my wish. I'm hoping his combo of real economic sense and sane(more than you can say for the rest of them) social views will get him the win. He has open primary states in the bag due to independents more likely siding with his moderate policies.

"Corporations are people".

Legally thats a true statement.

Politically, it's like saying "dog meat is tasty." What little he gained was greatly overridden by the image of him siding with corporate personhood. Then there was the explanation that he attempted to justify that stance with that really rubbed people the wrong way.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:

Stagnant:

"Corporations are people".

Legally thats a true statement.

Politically, it's like saying "dog meat is tasty." What little he gained was greatly overridden by the image of him siding with corporate personhood. Then there was the explanation that he attempted to justify that stance with that really rubbed people the wrong way.

Yeah a CEO who likes the idea of corporate personhood, who would have thunk it.

What is there to justify? I mean sure I am not to big on the idea myself but if the worst thing you can say about Romney is that he is in favor of corporate personhood then he is doing pretty well for himself politically.

It'll be Romney. It was always going to be Romney. The establishment and Fox News have cast their votes, so it's just a matter of everyone else falling into that party line and voting along it too.

The Gentleman:
Politically, it's like saying "dog meat is tasty." What little he gained was greatly overridden by the image of him siding with corporate personhood. Then there was the explanation that he attempted to justify that stance with that really rubbed people the wrong way.

It's a little rash a statement. Every country has enterprise forms that form a legal entity, and for good reason. For large businesses you need different arrangements. For instance, for most of the smallest enterprise forms, the CEO/director/owner is personally responsible for company debths. Would anyone ever be stupid enough to become a CEO of a any business large enough if that were the case for corporations as well? No.

I never quite understood the fuss over corporate personhood. Sounds mostly like it's about a different problem entirely, and personhood is just the part some people choose to lash out at.

And let's be honest: Are the people busy with that ever going to vote republican anyway? Is there some indication many republicans don't like that?

Blablahb:

The Gentleman:
Politically, it's like saying "dog meat is tasty." What little he gained was greatly overridden by the image of him siding with corporate personhood. Then there was the explanation that he attempted to justify that stance with that really rubbed people the wrong way.

It's a little rash a statement. Every country has enterprise forms that form a legal entity, and for good reason. For large businesses you need different arrangements. For instance, for most of the smallest enterprise forms, the CEO/director/owner is personally responsible for company debths. Would anyone ever be stupid enough to become a CEO of a any business large enough if that were the case for corporations as well? No.

I never quite understood the fuss over corporate personhood. Sounds mostly like it's about a different problem entirely, and personhood is just the part some people choose to lash out at.

And let's be honest: Are the people busy with that ever going to vote republican anyway? Is there some indication many republicans don't like that?

The problem with corporate personhood in the US is the claims they then have to rights as a "person". No matter how you look at it a corporation is not a person. There is no way they should have the exact same rights. They should be their own special entity with their own laws, regulations and rights.

Seekster:
Yeah a CEO who likes the idea of corporate personhood, who would have thunk it.

What is there to justify? I mean sure I am not to big on the idea myself but if the worst thing you can say about Romney is that he is in favor of corporate personhood then he is doing pretty well for himself politically.

The actual main legal/policy justification of corporate personhood is two-fold:

1) Making them a legal person allows them to have a singular bank account, registrations, titles, etc. under a corporate identity rather then having them each owned by an actual person who would then have to transfer all those individually if ownership of the corporation were to change. (This is a general theory. LLC's and partnerships also have similar rules but can sometimes vary on the details.)

2) Legal personhood makes the company itself a party at suit, rather than simply the owners whose individual resources and responsibility (and liability insurance) may not be as significant as the business entity. That can be particularly important in terms of attorney's fees, damages, and other litigation-related expenses.

Romney's justification was that that corporate profits go to people, not exactly a popular statement when most people feel corporate profits are not being distributed evenly. It was an off-the-cuff statement that will likely come back to haunt him in the general election, especially since Obama will likely attempt to frame himself as "the defender of the middle class" and Romney as "the defender of big business."

The Gentleman:

Seekster:
Yeah a CEO who likes the idea of corporate personhood, who would have thunk it.

What is there to justify? I mean sure I am not to big on the idea myself but if the worst thing you can say about Romney is that he is in favor of corporate personhood then he is doing pretty well for himself politically.

The actual main legal/policy justification of corporate personhood is two-fold:

1) Making them a legal person allows them to have a singular bank account, registrations, titles, etc. under a corporate identity rather then having them each owned by an actual person who would then have to transfer all those individually if ownership of the corporation were to change. (This is a general theory. LLC's and partnerships also have similar rules but can sometimes vary on the details.)

2) Legal personhood makes the company itself a party at suit, rather than simply the owners whose individual resources and responsibility (and liability insurance) may not be as significant as the business entity. That can be particularly important in terms of attorney's fees, damages, and other litigation-related expenses.

Romney's justification was that that corporate profits go to people, not exactly a popular statement when most people feel corporate profits are not being distributed evenly. It was an off-the-cuff statement that will likely come back to haunt him in the general election, especially since Obama will likely attempt to frame himself as "the defender of the middle class" and Romney as "the defender of big business."

Corporate profits arent supposed to be distributed evenly though when a business profits it should also be a boon for the community or communities in which that business operates (it produces wealth in many ways, for example, the salaries paid to workers who will then spend that money at businesses in the community).

Yes the tried and true stereotype of Democrats being the champion of the common man (which has basically always been there slogan going back as far as Jackson) and the Republicans being the friend of big business (which to a Conservative really doesnt seem like much of an insult, I mean what is wrong with business?) will be present in this election as it has in almost every election for the past several decades. One thing is indisputable though, things will be very different than they were in 2008 when Obama was viewed as a New Hope but later turned out to be a Phantom Menace (and yes that was intentional, like the Phantom Menace Obama had so many expectations which he could never meet and as turned out he wasnt very good to begin with).

So while we are going with off the cuff statements, who here remembers Obama's "I don't want my daughters PUNISHED with a baby." line?

I want it to be Romney. But it will probably be Paul. I have things I agree with for Paul but what he has been saying about Israel and those Isolationist policies are something we don't need.

Skullkid4187:
I want it to be Romney. But it will probably be Paul. I have things I agree with for Paul but what he has been saying about Israel and those Isolationist policies are something we don't need.

I doubt it will be Paul, and I really hope it isnt (in the Iowa Caucus at least, Paul has no chance in the Primary race at large). If Paul somehow does win in Iowa, the Ron Paul zealots will become impossible to live with.

Seekster:

Skullkid4187:
I want it to be Romney. But it will probably be Paul. I have things I agree with for Paul but what he has been saying about Israel and those Isolationist policies are something we don't need.

I doubt it will be Paul, and I really hope it isnt (in the Iowa Caucus at least, Paul has no chance in the Primary race at large). If Paul somehow does win in Iowa, the Ron Paul zealots will become impossible to live with.

On the other hand, if Paul were nominated, which is unlikely but not impossible given the current nature of the primary, it may be a good way to forcibly moderate the GOP. If Ron Paul were to be nominated, he would be completely and utterly crushed by Obama, giving the most extreme elements of the GOP base a stunning smack in the face that would be hard enough for the establishment moderates to reassert power and change direction as necessary for the party's survival. Think Goldwater II.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:

Skullkid4187:
I want it to be Romney. But it will probably be Paul. I have things I agree with for Paul but what he has been saying about Israel and those Isolationist policies are something we don't need.

I doubt it will be Paul, and I really hope it isnt (in the Iowa Caucus at least, Paul has no chance in the Primary race at large). If Paul somehow does win in Iowa, the Ron Paul zealots will become impossible to live with.

On the other hand, if Paul were nominated, which is unlikely but not impossible given the current nature of the primary, it may be a good way to forcibly moderate the GOP. If Ron Paul were to be nominated, he would be completely and utterly crushed by Obama, giving the most extreme elements of the GOP base a stunning smack in the face that would be hard enough for the establishment moderates to reassert power and change direction as necessary for the party's survival. Think Goldwater II.

Romney is actually the most likely person to pull the GOP back from the far right back to a more Reagan-style of Conservatism. Honestly I think Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney would be the healthiest thing for the GOP right now. The Tea Party is outliving its usefulness. Yes the Tea Party pulled the party right when it wanted to go left which was good but they pulled it too far to the right in the process if you ask me.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here