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

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 22 NEXT
 

Seekster:
In short they have to fool more moderates...

So moderates are stupid and gullible, then?

so to compensate the Democratic party has to moderate themselves more than the Republican party has to. This doesnt make them the Moderate party because there is no moderate party.

By saying the Democratic Party "has to moderate themselves", you imply it is a liberal party that attempts to broaden it's appeal. However, the Democratic Party is not and never has been a liberal party. It, and the Republican Party, are representations of their voter bases and politicians, which fluctuate through time. The Democratic Party is and has for a long time been composed to a strong degree of moderates and some conservatives (approx. 40% and 20% respectively now). These groups will not sit idly by as idiot stooges of a minority liberal ruling clique as you imply - they will actively drive Democrat policy, and drive it towards the moderate.

This is much less true of the Republicans in the last decade or two, driven by their increasingly dominant and unfortunately intolerant conservative base. They're even actively hounding out some of their moderates (or 'RINOs') now.

Agema:

Seekster:
In short they have to fool more moderates...

So moderates are stupid and gullible, then?

so to compensate the Democratic party has to moderate themselves more than the Republican party has to. This doesnt make them the Moderate party because there is no moderate party.

By saying the Democratic Party "has to moderate themselves", you imply it is a liberal party that attempts to broaden it's appeal. However, the Democratic Party is not and never has been a liberal party. It, and the Republican Party, are representations of their voter bases and politicians, which fluctuate through time. The Democratic Party is and has for a long time been composed to a strong degree of moderates and some conservatives (approx. 40% and 20% respectively now). These groups will not sit idly by as idiot stooges of a minority liberal ruling clique as you imply - they will actively drive Democrat policy, and drive it towards the moderate.

This is much less true of the Republicans in the last decade or two, driven by their increasingly dominant and unfortunately intolerant conservative base. They're even actively hounding out some of their moderates (or 'RINOs') now.

What? No. Moderates are Moderates.

I was referring to the phrase "you don't have to fool all the people all the time, just most of the people at election time".

In relative terms the Democratic party is the liberal party if the Republican party is the conservative party.

What you say has been something that moderate Republicans have argued for a long time. I must say that McCain did little to help that argument but if Romney wins the election it would help convince the Republican party that maybe they should shift a bit more to the middle. In my judgement the Republican party shifted too far to the Middle in 2008 but in 2010 they shifted too far to the right.

SurfinTaxt:

Seekster:

SurfinTaxt:
Well sure, the economy is far more important than any ideological issue but Id still like to know your stance on things> Do you believe Gays should be banned from having equal right like the gop does? How about our ABYSMAL foreign policy, which can be summed up as "side with Israel on everything no matter how fucking stupid theyre being"?

No, same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits as married couples. What the state calls a same-sex union is a grammatical matter that is left up to individual states. However no matter what you call it there is no reason to give certain rights and benefits to married couples but deny them to same-sex couples. Also I left the GOP in 2008 but I can tell you there is internal debate on the same-sex issue and there are notable groups in the GOP that actually support recognizing same-sex marriage for various reasons (for example libertarians argue that the government has no business telling people what is and is not a marriage).

Our foreign policy is not perfect but it good enough for us. Israel is our ally, who are we going to side with if not our ally? As for siding with them no matter what, thats simply untrue. If Israel hypothetically were to go nuts and say try and annex Lebanon we would demand that they stop it and if they didnt...see Iraq when that former US ally refused to get out of Kuwait (though Saddam's Iraq and Israel are vastly different countries and it would be unfair to compare them outside of a hypothetical).

Ah yes, libertarians, theyre so cute. If only they would realize that the constitution is a framework for the law, not the law itself. Of course, I would prefer someone who overly respects the constitution to one that wipes his ass with it (Bush, and more egregiously, Obama).
As for internal debate within the GOP, I applaud the libertarians for it but I doubt that its a real priority for them on the whole.

On Israel annexing Lebanon, I could almost guarantee you that NOTHING would be done on our part. The president would issue a stern rebuke, but that would be the extent of it. The reason Israel doesn't do this is because even the current radical right administration there doesnt want that much instability in the region.

You say we side with them because they are our allies, well what about Turkey? Turkey has been a steadfast ally of the us for decades, and we sided AGAINST them w/ Israel when they murdered Turkish civilians during the flotilla debacle. ALL THEY WANTED WAS AN APOLOGY! LOL, fucking Israel man.

ANd dont get me started with palestinian state-hood, netanyahu claims to support a two state solution then goes behind our backs and sabotages any and all attempts to come to that solution. The US totally rejected palestine's bid for UN membership, why? Because we are slaves to the Israeli agenda

Liberatrians are annoying not cute. The annoying thing is that in some thing and in some ways, they can be right, most of the time though they are just nuts.

Foreign policy is my specialty, I can assure you that Israel would need a very very strong reason to annex Lebanon and even then I can't think of any reason why the USA would just sit back and do nothing. The argument is moot though because Israel would never do that, my point is just to show that there are indeed things Israel could do that would lose them US support.

Not all allies are equal (see Pakistan). The only closer ally the United States has than Israel is the UK. Also the flotilla debacle was a win for the activists, they got the martyrs they wanted. Israel should have apologized to Turkey, I agree with you there. Israel should have also made better use of non-lethal weapons to fend off attacks from activists. However I refuse to defend activists who deliberately dare armed people to shoot them (I am an American and I tend to favor the British in the Boston Massacre incident). Israel is paranoid and given that they literally are surrounded by people who want to kill them and "wipe them out like a cancer" as Khameini said most recently, I think they have a reason to be paranoid. In short, do not play the brinksmanship game with Israel, you will freaking lose.

I think Netanyahu should do more for Palestinian statehood but its hard to argue against his points when he has a valid basis for them. Withdrawing from territory provably does not bring peace.

On the issue of the UN though, not going to happen. The UN can declare Palestine a state all it wants, Israel holds all the cards and the Palestinians are only going to make things worse the longer they go on thinking they are going to be allowed to return to their ancestors homes or that they are going to get half of Jerusalem back. The Palestinians need to get themselves set up as a state and if they still have grievances with Israel after that they can settle them state to state (preferably through diplomacy).

Seekster:

In relative terms the Democratic party is the liberal party if the Republican party is the conservative party.

I'm going to keep trying to make this clear until it sticks: statements like this, and implying that there's some liberal-conservative dichotomy between the parties and moderates are likely to be equally happy between the two in their main goals is false. You might as well be saying something like "The republican party is the liberal party if the nazi party is the conservative party". In the context of the discussion we're having, that makes about as much sense.

Stagnant:

SurfinTaxt:
Can you blame them though? I mean, the more unreasonable they were, the more Obama wanted to reason with them. He just kept capitulating, and of course their going to ask for more more more. And after nearly 4 years, it looks like Obama is finally standing up for progressives in some small way, just in time for the elecetion. After that, Im sure there will be more capitulating to be had

Seekster:
I wish I didnt have to but thats why the conservatives and the moderates that are against Obama don't like him. I assume the liberals don't like him have their own reasons which are very different. But I wont tell you what those reasons are because a person of one ideology A tells a person of ideology B what people of ideology B believe or think is just foolish. In other words I wish you would quit being foolish. If you want to tell me what you think fine but don't tell me what I and other Conservatives think.

You know, taking these two posts, I'd think that you two live on separate worlds.

And then I see something like this:

Seekster:
The funny thing is that the Republican party has been criticized by the Conservatives for capitulating to Obama on things like raising the debt limit and the automatic spending cuts and what not.

And realize that it's Seekster living in his own private little world, one which has only glancing similarities to our own, and where things like "not raising the debt ceiling" actually count as reasonable political choices.

Look, Seekster, do I really have to explain why raising the debt ceiling was necessary? Or why those who were against it should be ousted from office the same way that those who are in favor of nuking Beijing should be? I sure as fucking well hope not. "The electorate is largely comprised of complete and utter retards" is not a legitimate reason for those elected to be equally retarded.

The automatic spending cuts are another interesting thing - if I recall correctly, not only are the republicans strongly in favor of cutting spending, but as far as I can tell, they kinda had to agree on the supercomittee deal to begin with in order for it to take place.

Oh for goodness sake. I wasnt saying I necessarily agree with that idea I was just pointing out that the far right is basically saying the opposite of what the far left is saying about who is caving to who.

Nuking Beijing was something MacArthur wanted to do, it was also nuts and MacArthur was replaced and rightly so.

Cutting spending is needed but it needs to be done very carefully. Cutting a total of $1 Trillion from the military over a decade is NOT carefully, its insane...like Ron Paul type insane. Even Obama's own defense secretary said the military would be greatly damaged if it had to make the half trillion in automatic cuts on top of the already half trillion in cuts it has to make over the next 10 years.

Stagnant:

Seekster:

In relative terms the Democratic party is the liberal party if the Republican party is the conservative party.

I'm going to keep trying to make this clear until it sticks: statements like this, and implying that there's some liberal-conservative dichotomy between the parties and moderates are likely to be equally happy between the two in their main goals is false. You might as well be saying something like "The republican party is the liberal party if the nazi party is the conservative party". In the context of the discussion we're having, that makes about as much sense.

Stagnant earlier you said I live on a fantasy world, posts like the one above make me question your ability to say anyone else lives on a fantasy world. You simply do not appear to have the proper perspective to make such a claim from your own fantasy world.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/03/romney-on-poor-comment-i-misspoke/?hpt=hp_bn3

Hurray for clarification...although anyone who saw him ACTUALLY say it knew what he ment.

Seekster:
Cutting spending is needed but it needs to be done very carefully. Cutting a total of $1 Trillion from the military over a decade is NOT carefully, its insane...like Ron Paul type insane. Even Obama's own defense secretary said the military would be greatly damaged if it had to make the half trillion in automatic cuts on top of the already half trillion in cuts it has to make over the next 10 years.

I will agree with that 100%. There are 5 issues I look at with a president:
1) Military (focus on combat troops and new weapons tech)
2) Science (ie, NASA, DARPA, etc)
3) Education
4) The economy (wasnt it Reagan that had the campain button "its the economy stupid.")
5) Disability and Special services.

And I can easily say, I...Was...FURIOUS when I heard that they want to cut $1 trillion from defense.

BOOM headshot65:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/03/romney-on-poor-comment-i-misspoke/?hpt=hp_bn3

Hurray for clarification...although anyone who saw him ACTUALLY say it knew what he ment.

Seekster:
Cutting spending is needed but it needs to be done very carefully. Cutting a total of $1 Trillion from the military over a decade is NOT carefully, its insane...like Ron Paul type insane. Even Obama's own defense secretary said the military would be greatly damaged if it had to make the half trillion in automatic cuts on top of the already half trillion in cuts it has to make over the next 10 years.

I will agree with that 100%. There are 5 issues I look at with a president:
1) Military (focus on combat troops and new weapons tech)
2) Science (ie, NASA, DARPA, etc)
3) Education
4) The economy (wasnt it Reagan that had the campain button "its the economy stupid.")
5) Disability and Special services.

And I can easily say, I...Was...FURIOUS when I heard that they want to cut $1 trillion from defense.

1. Military, absolutely, that is the first and primary job of the President, to ensure the nation is kept safe.

2. Science, as in investing in research and the exploration of space, yeah that makes sense.

3. Education, well only for the purposes of saying to the states "ok here are the standards we need to meet, here is some money to help you meet those standards, make it happen."

4. Economy, I think it was Clinton who said that but I am not sure, in any case its true but ultimately there is only so much a President can do to help the economy but fairly or unfairly Presidents are held accountable for the economy during their time in office.

5. Disability and Special Services, not so much the President himself as the executive branch, specifically the departments responsibile for that sort of thing, but yeah I agree with you there.

The good news on the insanely deep defense cuts is that the next Congress could pass a budget that increases defense spending enough to make up a few hundred trillion dollars in cuts. We needed to cut military spending but not this much.

Seekster:

1. Military, absolutely, that is the first and primary job of the President, to ensure the nation is kept safe.

Rather self explanitory. This is acutally one of the reason That I consider W. Bush to be good. I liked the way he handled things on 9/11. Sometimes I wounder what would have happened if Gore was president then. My guess, we would have just sat back and done nothing again, like we did the first time the towers where attacked.

2. Science, as in investing in research and the exploration of space, yeah that makes sense.

Space exploration is definatly high on my list, mostly because we can get so much beneficial tech out of it. I was mad when Obama canceled the "Constellation" class heavy lifters to replace the shuttles because they were "too expensive" even though they were half done and we get paid trillions to carry equipment into space for other countries.

3. Education, well only for the purposes of saying to the states "ok here are the standards we need to meet, here is some money to help you meet those standards, make it happen."

Education is one of those things That I think could be handled better on a local level, because two schools distracts less than 5 miles apart from eachother can be massively differnet.

4. Economy, I think it was Clinton who said that but I am not sure, in any case its true but ultimately there is only so much a President can do to help the economy but fairly or unfairly Presidents are held accountable for the economy during their time in office.

I dont exaclty mean that the president would be the sole force in turning around the economy, but he could tell congress "I think this will help. Lets look into it." Although, as it stands, neither side in congress is proposing anything productive. The only thing the Democrats say is "Lets raise taxes on the rich" even though they will then pass that on to consumers (dispite what anyone says, its what always happens. Its basic economics.) However, the extreme repubilcan responce of "Cut everything, including taxes" is also unhelpful.

5. Disability and Special Services, not so much the President himself as the executive branch, specifically the departments responsibile for that sort of thing, but yeah I agree with you there.

I believe that the people who are disabled or retired should be allowed to recieve money from social security etc, but if you are not disabled and unemployed, you should have to do work for the government. Not only will this help be productive to socity, it will give the unemployed work experiance, which can then go on a resume and say to an employer "I can get the job done."

The good news on the insanely deep defense cuts is that the next Congress could pass a budget that increases defense spending enough to make up a few hundred trillion dollars in cuts. We needed to cut military spending but not this much.

We can only hope. I am all for eliminating waste from the miltary budget, or getting rid of unnessisary weapons, equipment, and practices, but this is Ridicules. We need a scaple to cut away the fat right now. This is a hatchet at best. (part of the reason I dont support Ron Paul? His policies are more like a chainsaw)

...Why is cutting $1T from the most overbloated military budget on the planet unreasonable? I mean, come on guys. Beyond entitlements (which, for the most part, people earned by paying payroll and similar taxes), the military makes up about half of our government's federal budget each year, and we spent almost as much as the entire rest of the world combined on our military. I don't think "we need to cut our military budget" is such an outlandish claim.

BOOM headshot65:

Seekster:

1. Military, absolutely, that is the first and primary job of the President, to ensure the nation is kept safe.

Rather self explanitory. This is acutally one of the reason That I consider W. Bush to be good. I liked the way he handled things on 9/11. Sometimes I wounder what would have happened if Gore was president then. My guess, we would have just sat back and done nothing again, like we did the first time the towers where attacked.

That or launch a few missiles like Clinton did. I like Bush personally but I will grant he was probably a below average President in terms of his governance (still better than both his father and Obama). However I strongly maintain that Bush did a better job than Gore or Kerry ever could have.

BOOM headshot65:

Seekster:
2. Science, as in investing in research and the exploration of space, yeah that makes sense.

Space exploration is definatly high on my list, mostly because we can get so much beneficial tech out of it. I was mad when Obama canceled the "Constellation" class heavy lifters to replace the shuttles because they were "too expensive" even though they were half done and we get paid trillions to carry equipment into space for other countries.

I was PISSED when Obama canceled Constellation, even more so because it was replaced with essentially the same program only now we are going to an asteroid instead of the moon and they pushed the date further back. What I am looking forward to is seeing SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft start flights to the ISS. In 2018 they have a plan to send the Dragon to Mars and back (unmanned) on a low cost mission where it will land on the surface, conduct some experiments, drill a hole and maybe retrieve some soil which it will then bring back. The whole thing is supposed to cost around $450 million minus the launch which is really cheap for a round trip to Mars.

BOOM headshot65:

Seekster:
3. Education, well only for the purposes of saying to the states "ok here are the standards we need to meet, here is some money to help you meet those standards, make it happen."

Education is one of those things That I think could be handled better on a local level, because two schools distracts less than 5 miles apart from eachother can be massively differnet.

I agree completely, the only real reason the federal government needs to be involved in education at all is to set the standards that schools need to meet and provide funding as needed.

BOOM headshot65:

Seekster:
4. Economy, I think it was Clinton who said that but I am not sure, in any case its true but ultimately there is only so much a President can do to help the economy but fairly or unfairly Presidents are held accountable for the economy during their time in office.

I dont exaclty mean that the president would be the sole force in turning around the economy, but he could tell congress "I think this will help. Lets look into it." Although, as it stands, neither side in congress is proposing anything productive. The only thing the Democrats say is "Lets raise taxes on the rich" even though they will then pass that on to consumers (dispite what anyone says, its what always happens. Its basic economics.) However, the extreme repubilcan responce of "Cut everything, including taxes" is also unhelpful.

Yeah both parties have been pretty useless on the economy. The good news is that if you leave the economy alone for a while it will start to fix itself. Since the government has been deadlocked for a while now the economy has started to improve.

BOOM headshot65:

Seekster:
5. Disability and Special Services, not so much the President himself as the executive branch, specifically the departments responsibile for that sort of thing, but yeah I agree with you there.

I believe that the people who are disabled or retired should be allowed to recieve money from social security etc, but if you are not disabled and unemployed, you should have to do work for the government. Not only will this help be productive to socity, it will give the unemployed work experiance, which can then go on a resume and say to an employer "I can get the job done."

Not my area of expertise but suffice it to say that reform is needed in this area.

BOOM headshot65:

Seekster:
The good news on the insanely deep defense cuts is that the next Congress could pass a budget that increases defense spending enough to make up a few hundred trillion dollars in cuts. We needed to cut military spending but not this much.

We can only hope. I am all for eliminating waste from the miltary budget, or getting rid of unnessisary weapons, equipment, and practices, but this is Ridicules. We need a scaple to cut away the fat right now. This is a hatchet at best. (part of the reason I dont support Ron Paul? His policies are more like a chainsaw)

I quite agree.

Stagnant:
...Why is cutting $1T from the most overbloated military budget on the planet unreasonable? I mean, come on guys. Beyond entitlements (which, for the most part, people earned by paying payroll and similar taxes), the military makes up about half of our government's federal budget each year, and we spent almost as much as the entire rest of the world combined on our military. I don't think "we need to cut our military budget" is such an outlandish claim.

Its too much too fast. The half a trillion dollars over 10 years was harsh but reasonable and we did need to cut some military spending (though actually military spending is still increasing just at a slower rate).

As BOOM said, it was using a chainsaw when a scapel was needed.

BOOM headshot65:

4) The economy (wasnt it Reagan that had the campain button "its the economy stupid.")

Seekster:
4. Economy, I think it was Clinton who said that but I am not sure,

Yeah, good old William Jefferson Reagan.

Seanchaidh:

BOOM headshot65:

4) The economy (wasnt it Reagan that had the campain button "its the economy stupid.")

Seekster:
4. Economy, I think it was Clinton who said that but I am not sure,

Yeah, good old William Jefferson Reagan.

You mean Slick Willy? Yeah I looked it up, I was right it was Clinton.

Seekster:

Seanchaidh:

BOOM headshot65:

4) The economy (wasnt it Reagan that had the campain button "its the economy stupid.")

Seekster:
4. Economy, I think it was Clinton who said that but I am not sure,

Yeah, good old William Jefferson Reagan.

You mean Slick Willy? Yeah I looked it up, I was right it was Clinton.

Of course it was Clinton. Or Carville, really.

Seanchaidh:

Seekster:

Seanchaidh:

Yeah, good old William Jefferson Reagan.

You mean Slick Willy? Yeah I looked it up, I was right it was Clinton.

Of course it was Clinton. Or Carville, really.

I like Carville he is a nut, a fun nut mind you. Every now and then Carville actually says something sensible though.

The Nevada Caucuses have started. The results should be posted within a few hours.

Go ahead and update the title of the thread, Romney is going to win Nevada and big. Just looked at the entrance poll data and he wins big in basically every category except a few like the youngest age group which Paul won narrowly.

Seekster:
Go ahead and update the title of the thread, Romney is going to win Nevada and big. Just looked at the entrance poll data and he wins big in basically every category except a few like the youngest age group which Paul won narrowly.

I'll call it when at least 50% are counted. The final door doesn't even close for another hour.

On another note, looks like Paul may take second by a sizable Margin.

Early results posted (>15% reported). Mitt Romney wins Nevada by a substantial margin.

I don't understand why they already are calling it a Romney victory at only 15% reporting, isn't that jumping the gun a bit? What about the other 85% of the state?

tendaji:
I don't understand why they already are calling it a Romney victory at only 15% reporting, isn't that jumping the gun a bit? What about the other 85% of the state?

Generally, entrance/exit polling usually helps predict the outcome for polling agencies/journalists.

In this case, the polling was overwhelmingly in Romney's favor. They literally could have called it before the last precinct's doors closed.

Go ahead and stick a fork in anyone else running. This is now Mitt Romneys races.

tendaji:
I don't understand why they already are calling it a Romney victory at only 15% reporting, isn't that jumping the gun a bit? What about the other 85% of the state?

Combined with polling and how conservative a state is it is pretty easy in some states to predict who is going to win, Nevada is a moderate state without any sort of dominating political force, which means it is a shoe in for Romney. Gingrich can only do well in states with a core group of far right voters, likewise Ron Paul needs a state with a very active libertarian movement to do well. Unfortunately for him there are simply not enough libertarians to see him to a victory. New Hampshire is typically his best state and he got second.

Seekster:

What you say has been something that moderate Republicans have argued for a long time. I must say that McCain did little to help that argument but if Romney wins the election it would help convince the Republican party that maybe they should shift a bit more to the middle. In my judgement the Republican party shifted too far to the Middle in 2008 but in 2010 they shifted too far to the right.

Maybe you're quite a bit younger than me, but when I were a lad, the Republicans were much more moderates - the good old days of fiscal responsibles like GHW Bush. Go back even further, to rampant lefties like Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower...

Agema:

Seekster:

What you say has been something that moderate Republicans have argued for a long time. I must say that McCain did little to help that argument but if Romney wins the election it would help convince the Republican party that maybe they should shift a bit more to the middle. In my judgement the Republican party shifted too far to the Middle in 2008 but in 2010 they shifted too far to the right.

Maybe you're quite a bit younger than me, but when I were a lad, the Republicans were much more moderates - the good old days of fiscal responsibles like GHW Bush. Go back even further, to rampant lefties like Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower...

I know I read. When your grandfather was a lad most black people probably voted Republican...my how things have changed.

Seekster:

Agema:

Seekster:

What you say has been something that moderate Republicans have argued for a long time. I must say that McCain did little to help that argument but if Romney wins the election it would help convince the Republican party that maybe they should shift a bit more to the middle. In my judgement the Republican party shifted too far to the Middle in 2008 but in 2010 they shifted too far to the right.

Maybe you're quite a bit younger than me, but when I were a lad, the Republicans were much more moderates - the good old days of fiscal responsibles like GHW Bush. Go back even further, to rampant lefties like Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower...

I know I read. When your grandfather was a lad most black people probably voted Republican...my how things have changed.

The Civil Rights Act and the Southern Strategy had something to do with that...

I finally found some final numbers for Nevada. They've been posted on the front page.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:

Agema:

Maybe you're quite a bit younger than me, but when I were a lad, the Republicans were much more moderates - the good old days of fiscal responsibles like GHW Bush. Go back even further, to rampant lefties like Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower...

I know I read. When your grandfather was a lad most black people probably voted Republican...my how things have changed.

The Civil Rights Act and the Southern Strategy had something to do with that...

I finally found some final numbers for Nevada. They've been posted on the front page.

Yes I know that and again, my how things change.

As I have said repeatedly, a political party will do or say pretty much anything if it thinks it will help it win elections.

Yes I saw, Romney got 50% of the vote and Gingrich barely managed to edge out Paul. Now tomorrow we have Minnesota and Colorado. Romney will probably win Colorado but Santorum looks strong in Minnesota.

Seekster:

The Gentleman:

The Civil Rights Act and the Southern Strategy had something to do with that...

I finally found some final numbers for Nevada. They've been posted on the front page.

Yes I know that and again, my how things change.

As I have said repeatedly, a political party will do or say pretty much anything if it thinks it will help it win elections.

Yes I saw, Romney got 50% of the vote and Gingrich barely managed to edge out Paul. Now tomorrow we have Minnesota and Colorado. Romney will probably win Colorado but Santorum looks strong in Minnesota.

That's a number that Romney's campaign should be touting much louder than they are now. No contest so far has anyone breaking 50% until Nevada, and they can use that as evidence that their candidate is finally acceptible to the majority of Republicans.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:

The Gentleman:

The Civil Rights Act and the Southern Strategy had something to do with that...

I finally found some final numbers for Nevada. They've been posted on the front page.

Yes I know that and again, my how things change.

As I have said repeatedly, a political party will do or say pretty much anything if it thinks it will help it win elections.

Yes I saw, Romney got 50% of the vote and Gingrich barely managed to edge out Paul. Now tomorrow we have Minnesota and Colorado. Romney will probably win Colorado but Santorum looks strong in Minnesota.

That's a number that Romney's campaign should be touting much louder than they are now. No contest so far has anyone breaking 50% until Nevada, and they can use that as evidence that their candidate is finally acceptible to the majority of Republicans.

Trouble is that the turn out in Nevada was relatively low (all the candidates have something wrong with them so nobody got really excited about any one of them) so touting the Nevada numbers on their own isnt going to mean much. Now if he gets 50% or over again I would start touting that as evidence that the majority of Republicans are finally deciding on Romney. Touting the numbers in one state is just a flimsy argument for something like that, its what Santorum is doing with Iowa and Gingrich with South Carolina.

Predictions for today's votes:

Missouri and Minnesota go to Santorum and Mittens picks up Colorado. Paul gets around 10% of the vote at most in each of these states.

A prediction for tonight's contests:

Romney will win Colorado but Santorum will do well. More significantly Santorum will win Minnesota and Missouri. Missouri is meaningless in terms of delegates (at least tonight's primary is, they have a caucus later on that means something) but in terms of what it means to the Santorum it is very important. Why? Newt Gingrich isnt on the ballot in Missouri so a win there will be used by Santorum's fans to argue that if Newt would drop out then Santorum could best Romney. Can he? I doubt it but I kind of prefer Santorum to Newt...as a person, I dont want Santorum anywhere near the Presidency and I hope he doesnt win the nomination because if he does I might have no choice but to vote for him out of principle (I refuse to not vote in a Presidential election and Obama needs to give me a reason to vote for him and stop giving me reasons not to vote for him which isnt likely).

If Santorum has a good night tonight that is bad for Gingrich and what is bad for Gingrich is good for Romney.

In other news, apparently Obama decided that SuperPACs arent so bad after all and got himself some.

Seekster:
A prediction for tonight's contests:

Romney will win Colorado but Santorum will do well. More significantly Santorum will win Minnesota and Missouri. Missouri is meaningless in terms of delegates (at least tonight's primary is, they have a caucus later on that means something) but in terms of what it means to the Santorum it is very important. Why? Newt Gingrich isnt on the ballot in Missouri so a win there will be used by Santorum's fans to argue that if Newt would drop out then Santorum could best Romney. Can he? I doubt it but I kind of prefer Santorum to Newt...as a person, I dont want Santorum anywhere near the Presidency and I hope he doesnt win the nomination because if he does I might have no choice but to vote for him out of principle (I refuse to not vote in a Presidential election and Obama needs to give me a reason to vote for him and stop giving me reasons not to vote for him which isnt likely).

If Santorum has a good night tonight that is bad for Gingrich and what is bad for Gingrich is good for Romney.

In other news, apparently Obama decided that SuperPACs arent so bad after all and got himself some.

All post the results sometime later today when the full results are in.

Santorum is winning the state that has a town that has been forcing gay kids to kill themselves it is also the home state of Sarah Palin mk 2 (Michelle Bachmann: Now with more melanin).

There's a shock. And Missouri should go to him as well, again another not surprising fact.

Still, the GOP hates Romney, but nominating Santorum would hand Obama the election on a platter. At least Romney will make it interesting.

The GOP never nominated Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell during their times. Why would they elect someone with their exact views now?

It would be kind of interesting to see the republican party look at Santorum's results and think, "Huh, you know, maybe we need to further the 'gay-bashing' strain of our party a little more?"

Stagnant:
It would be kind of interesting to see the republican party look at Santorum's results and think, "Huh, you know, maybe we need to further the 'gay-bashing' strain of our party a little more?"

They won Colorado, the home of James Dobson and "Focus on the Family", the most extreme right wing group in the United States today.

Dobson has stated in the past that if your kid is gay "You have failed as a parant and as a Christian"

Such a wonderful dude.

Santorum winning Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri, three states with ugly stances on homosexuality, was not surprising at all.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked