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

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . . . 22 NEXT
 

Seekster:
Yes I am sure The US Virgin Islands and perhaps even Puerto Rico will give Paul their support.

Actually the delegate count as of now is: (according to CNN at least)

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries.html

Romney: 127
Gingrich: 38
Santorum: 37
Paul: 27

Now if you want to say CNN is biased against Paul, well they are but we are dealing with delegates here and the number of delegates someone has is a single number and is not up for discussion.

I should note at this point that my top post delegate counts are not necessarily the same as the others as this is not an exact science. Almost every site uses a different methodology (particularly with non-binding delegates) for determining who has which delegates, and the new rules requiring proportional distribution prior to April have not helped.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:
Yes I am sure The US Virgin Islands and perhaps even Puerto Rico will give Paul their support.

Actually the delegate count as of now is: (according to CNN at least)

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries.html

Romney: 127
Gingrich: 38
Santorum: 37
Paul: 27

Now if you want to say CNN is biased against Paul, well they are but we are dealing with delegates here and the number of delegates someone has is a single number and is not up for discussion.

I should note at this point that my top post delegate counts are not necessarily the same as the others as this is not an exact science. Almost every site uses a different methodology (particularly with non-binding delegates) for determining who has which delegates, and the new rules requiring proportional distribution prior to April have not helped.

*Shrugs* Yeah its complicated but I just tend to go off of what CNN has since thats one area where there isnt really room for discussion, you either have the delegates or you don't. I think the only thing that is iffy is Santorum may have more delegates than CNN shows but hasn't officially been awarded them yet.

Seekster:

*Shrugs* Yeah its complicated but I just tend to go off of what CNN has since thats one area where there isnt really room for discussion, you either have the delegates or you don't. I think the only thing that is iffy is Santorum may have more delegates than CNN shows but hasn't officially been awarded them yet.

It's funny how untrue that is!

Most caucus states haven't given any candidate any delegates at all! Pretty much every delegate they've granted to Santorum is a HUGE assumption that the caucus process will exactly reflect the straw voting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M6-jvhkVlt0#t=187s

There we go, CNN agreeing with me. The Ron Paul people have hijacked the delegate process and have been doing so for months. Isn't it wonderful?

tstorm823:

Seekster:

*Shrugs* Yeah its complicated but I just tend to go off of what CNN has since thats one area where there isnt really room for discussion, you either have the delegates or you don't. I think the only thing that is iffy is Santorum may have more delegates than CNN shows but hasn't officially been awarded them yet.

It's funny how untrue that is!

Most caucus states haven't given any candidate any delegates at all! Pretty much every delegate they've granted to Santorum is a HUGE assumption that the caucus process will exactly reflect the straw voting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M6-jvhkVlt0#t=187s

There we go, CNN agreeing with me. The Ron Paul people have hijacked the delegate process and have been doing so for months. Isn't it wonderful?

Not really sure what you are on about, Romney has the most delegates by a good margin and Ron Paul is running behind Gingrich in the delegate count.

Seekster:

Not really sure what you are on about, Romney has the most delegates by a good margin and Ron Paul is running behind Gingrich in the delegate count.

Caucuses don't just give delegates based on the popular vote. At the precinct meetings after the caucus voting, delegates are chosen to be sent to the county convention, where they choose delegates to go to the state convention, where they choose national delegates who can vote for whom they choose. Ron Paul people have been volunteering in a disproportional amount to be precinct delegates, which means the will have more at the county and then state conventions... just by staying politically involved, Ron Paul supporters can win a plurality of delegates with a minority of popular votes.

When CNN or anyone else does its delegate awarding, they are guessing based on the popular vote, but in reality in caucuses, the popular vote is totally meaningless. In fact, most of the delegates they've assigned won't be officially awarded for a couple months and could go to any candidate on the ballot. The only delegate counts that are absolute are the delegates from primaries, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida, a total of 87 delegates which is less than CNN says Romney has. Turns out they are big liars!

tstorm823:

Seekster:

Not really sure what you are on about, Romney has the most delegates by a good margin and Ron Paul is running behind Gingrich in the delegate count.

Caucuses don't just give delegates based on the popular vote. At the precinct meetings after the caucus voting, delegates are chosen to be sent to the county convention, where they choose delegates to go to the state convention, where they choose national delegates who can vote for whom they choose. Ron Paul people have been volunteering in a disproportional amount to be precinct delegates, which means the will have more at the county and then state conventions... just by staying politically involved, Ron Paul supporters can win a plurality of delegates with a minority of popular votes.

When CNN or anyone else does its delegate awarding, they are guessing based on the popular vote, but in reality in caucuses, the popular vote is totally meaningless. In fact, most of the delegates they've assigned won't be officially awarded for a couple months and could go to any candidate on the ballot. The only delegate counts that are absolute are the delegates from primaries, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida, a total of 87 delegates which is less than CNN says Romney has. Turns out they are big liars!

The Caucus delegates are usually assigned based on popular vote. The numbers may not be exact yet but they wont be too far off from what you see on CNN.

I hope you arent under the delusion that Ron Paul has a chance in hell. He is in this race to promote his message and I can respect that but he is never going to win the nomination.

Seekster:

The Caucus delegates are usually assigned based on popular vote. The numbers may not be exact yet but they wont be too far off from what you see on CNN.

No they aren't. Here you go, from the mouth of the devil himself.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/02/what-is-caucus-and-how-does-it-work/

I hope you arent under the delusion that Ron Paul has a chance in hell. He is in this race to promote his message and I can respect that but he is never going to win the nomination.

I hope you aren't under the delusion that Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich is going to beat Ron Paul while they fail at the delegate gaining process, lose the primaries to Romney, and miss 3-5 state ballots. Ron Paul is the only one competing with Romney, and they both know it.

4% in in Michigan, Santorum leads by about 1000 votes.

Romney is already projected to win Arizona, its not even close apparently. In Michigan with 38% of the vote in Romney is ahead 41% to 38% for Santorum.

For what its worth Karl Rove has said Romney will win Michigan.

CNN is reporting a less than 12,000 vote lead by Romney (40% reporting). Washington Post is reporting similar results at 34% reporting.

More interesting is the map. Delegates are allotted geographically by (state?) congressional district at two each, with a handful of floaters who are distributed by popular vote. It is entirely possible (and, indeed, likely), especially given the current geographic make-up of the results, that Romney may win the popular vote, but not the majority of delegates.

Did you hear that an abnormally large number of self-described Democrats voted in Michigan and of those most voted for Santorum? I have a feeling its not because they like Santorum...heh well alls fair I suppose. Still I think Romney will win tonight. With 53% of the votes Romney has now moved up to 42% over Santorum's 37%.

I think chances are pretty good the delegates will split evenly between Slick Rick and Willard in Michigan.

But yeah, 50% of democrats that voted did so for Santorum with the expres purpose of trying to get a GOP candidate that's easier to beat. Normally, I'd hope for Santorum's success to help draw out to a convention, but he doesn't deserve to win if 5% of the voters pick him just because they think he's awful.

Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC have called Michigan for Mitt Romney. Disaster narrowly averted.

Seekster:
Did you hear that an abnormally large number of self-described Democrats voted in Michigan and of those most voted for Santorum?

Yeah I heard about that as well, I've also heard that apparently this kind of thing happened during the democratic primary, so is this crossover voting a common thing? (just checked, it did happen and was apparently pushed by Rush Limbaugh)
Strikes me as a terrible idea.

Knight Templar:

Seekster:
Did you hear that an abnormally large number of self-described Democrats voted in Michigan and of those most voted for Santorum?

Yeah I heard about that as well, I've also heard that apparently this kind of thing happened during the democratic primary, so is this crossover voting a common thing? (just checked, it did happen and was apparently pushed by Rush Limbaugh)
Strikes me as a terrible idea.

Open primaries are a trade-off proposition. In exchange for having non-party members having input in your candidates, you generally get a higher turnout, larger voter pool, and generally more-moderate candidates (as they try to appeal to moderates and independents).

The Gentleman:

Knight Templar:

Seekster:
Did you hear that an abnormally large number of self-described Democrats voted in Michigan and of those most voted for Santorum?

Yeah I heard about that as well, I've also heard that apparently this kind of thing happened during the democratic primary, so is this crossover voting a common thing? (just checked, it did happen and was apparently pushed by Rush Limbaugh)
Strikes me as a terrible idea.

Open primaries are a trade-off proposition. In exchange for having non-party members having input in your candidates, you generally get a higher turnout, larger voter pool, and generally more-moderate candidates (as they try to appeal to moderates and independents).

I was refering to the concept of voting for a candidate because you think they are bad, for the lulz as it were.

Knight Templar:
I was refering to the concept of voting for a candidate because you think they are bad, for the lulz as it were.

Yes, well, they don't exactly ask you why you are voting for a guy when you check off your ballot.

Seekster:
Did you hear that an abnormally large number of self-described Democrats voted in Michigan and of those most voted for Santorum? I have a feeling its not because they like Santorum...heh well alls fair I suppose. Still I think Romney will win tonight. With 53% of the votes Romney has now moved up to 42% over Santorum's 37%.

Yeah, they understand what we do: if Santorum gets nominated, the GOP loses this election. Romney has the best chance at winning by a wide margin.

I did like on CNN how they showed how "Self-Described Born Again/Evangelicals" voted in Michigan and Arizona.

It wasn't shocking Santorum got 72% in Michigan and 65% of that in Arizona. I find it shocking it wasn't higher. The guy is basically their candidate front and center.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Yeah, they understand what we do: if Santorum gets nominated, the GOP loses this election. Romney has the best chance at winning by a wide margin.

I did like on CNN how they showed how "Self-Described Born Again/Evangelicals" voted in Michigan and Arizona.

It wasn't shocking Santorum got 72% in Michigan and 65% of that in Arizona. I find it shocking it wasn't higher. The guy is basically their candidate front and center.

Ron Paul supporter to the rescue!!!!!

Ron Paul does just as well in general election match-up polling as Romney does, largely because he does better than Obama or Romney among independants!!!!

Ironically, Santorum is catholic, and the only candidate that remotely fits the "evangelical christian" description is Ron Paul!!!!

I hope you read this reply in as stupid a voice as was in my head while I wrote it!!!!!

Knight Templar:

The Gentleman:

Knight Templar:

Yeah I heard about that as well, I've also heard that apparently this kind of thing happened during the democratic primary, so is this crossover voting a common thing? (just checked, it did happen and was apparently pushed by Rush Limbaugh)
Strikes me as a terrible idea.

Open primaries are a trade-off proposition. In exchange for having non-party members having input in your candidates, you generally get a higher turnout, larger voter pool, and generally more-moderate candidates (as they try to appeal to moderates and independents).

I was refering to the concept of voting for a candidate because you think they are bad, for the lulz as it were.

It's not at all "for the lulz", it's strategic-- voting for the candidate you think your candidate can most easily take down vs. the one that's harder to beat. The risk is that the "easier to beat" candidate wins your primary *and* wins the general, but most people who crossover-vote are politically active and have a decent sense of who's easier/harder to beat. Not only that, but if you vote for the underdog, you keep the race going longer, making the harder-to-beat candidate more likely to be weakened and bloody going into the general.

Santorum is terrifying, but as a GOP nominee would also be god's gift to Barack Obama, turning out the base in record numbers. Romney is much tougher to beat, Santorum staying in longer is likely to benefit the President. It's actually a fairly sensible strategy, and I've definitely done it before. (I've also crossover-voted to pick a more moderate candidate, depending on the election at the moment.)

Polarity27:
snip

I understand the logic behind it I simply do not respect it.

Knight Templar:

Seekster:
Did you hear that an abnormally large number of self-described Democrats voted in Michigan and of those most voted for Santorum?

Yeah I heard about that as well, I've also heard that apparently this kind of thing happened during the democratic primary, so is this crossover voting a common thing? (just checked, it did happen and was apparently pushed by Rush Limbaugh)
Strikes me as a terrible idea.

Yeah its underhanded but fair and the Republicans tried to do the same thing in 2008 by voting for Hillary. Didnt work then not going to work now. No crossover voting is actually relatively rare since as you said it just seems like a bad idea. When it happens though it gets a lot of coverage so you would think its more common than it actually is.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:
Did you hear that an abnormally large number of self-described Democrats voted in Michigan and of those most voted for Santorum? I have a feeling its not because they like Santorum...heh well alls fair I suppose. Still I think Romney will win tonight. With 53% of the votes Romney has now moved up to 42% over Santorum's 37%.

Yeah, they understand what we do: if Santorum gets nominated, the GOP loses this election. Romney has the best chance at winning by a wide margin.

I did like on CNN how they showed how "Self-Described Born Again/Evangelicals" voted in Michigan and Arizona.

It wasn't shocking Santorum got 72% in Michigan and 65% of that in Arizona. I find it shocking it wasn't higher. The guy is basically their candidate front and center.

CNN is the big loser last night, they kept drumming away even after Romney won about how even if its close in Michigan this is a loss for Romney. By the end of the night I just wanted to slap Wolf Blitzer for being such an asshat and injecting his own views into the narrative. It got so bad I just left it on Fox News who actually provided better coverage (perhaps because they had Karl Rove who has more political sense in one finger than CNN's entire harem of empty talking heads).

One thing people seem to be failing to mention is that Romney beat Santorum among Tea Party voters too. Santorum is slowly being revealed as just another Washington politician. At this point the only thing keeping me from outright endorsing Romney is my policy against endorsing candidates. Among the 5 people who are seeking the Presidency (well 5 that are actually on the ballots in most places, 5 includes Obama) Romney is probably the only one that isnt too partisan or too divisive to be an effective President. He doesnt really thrill anybody but he doesnt generate the kind of hatred that the other 4 men seeking the Presidency garner. Plus Rush Limbaugh seems to have a personal problem with Mitt and that makes supporting him that much more fun.

Seekster:
CNN is the big loser last night, they kept drumming away even after Romney won about how even if its close in Michigan this is a loss for Romney. By the end of the night I just wanted to slap Wolf Blitzer for being such an asshat and injecting his own views into the narrative. It got so bad I just left it on Fox News who actually provided better coverage (perhaps because they had Karl Rove who has more political sense in one finger than CNN's entire harem of empty talking heads).

Winning a fight that you shouldn't have had to fight in the first place isn't exactly a victory one should be proud of. It's like a Republican proclaiming victory after a hard general election fight in South Carolina.

Michigan was supposed to be safe for Romney: He won it in 2008, his father was a popular governor, it's his real home state (and, yes, that does factor in). Had this primary been a week ago, he could have lost the popular vote. Like Florida, he had to pour massive resources into the state that was not planned for, and he may still not win the majority of delegates (Again, weird distribution system based on congressional districts).

Seekster:
One thing people seem to be failing to mention is that Romney beat Santorum among Tea Party voters too. Santorum is slowly being revealed as just another Washington politician. At this point the only thing keeping me from outright endorsing Romney is my policy against endorsing candidates. Among the 5 people who are seeking the Presidency (well 5 that are actually on the ballots in most places, 5 includes Obama) Romney is probably the only one that isnt too partisan or too divisive to be an effective President. He doesnt really thrill anybody but he doesnt generate the kind of hatred that the other 4 men seeking the Presidency garner. Plus Rush Limbaugh seems to have a personal problem with Mitt and that makes supporting him that much more fun.

The exit polling I'm reading is a little different. In Michigan, Romney won "somewhat support/oppose/neutral the Tea Party" but Santorum won both "Strongly Support" and "Strongly Oppose." Romney also lost significantly among self-described "Very conservative" voters and barely won half of the "somewhat conservative" voters. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and Fox News all have identical results.

Voter excitement/passion is also extremely important in unseating an incumbent president. Cases-on-point: 1996 and 2004. In both cases, the non-incumbent candidate (Dole and Kerry, respectively) could not elicit any substantial passion from a voter base. Both were considered the "safe picks" by their respective party leadership and both were sunk in the general election. Romney will loose unless he can somehow make the base excited to vote for him. In addition, democratic voters have been getting extremely agitated by anti-union and hard-right social legislation in key swing states including Ohio and Virginia and will likely have above-average turnout for an incumbent election.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:
CNN is the big loser last night, they kept drumming away even after Romney won about how even if its close in Michigan this is a loss for Romney. By the end of the night I just wanted to slap Wolf Blitzer for being such an asshat and injecting his own views into the narrative. It got so bad I just left it on Fox News who actually provided better coverage (perhaps because they had Karl Rove who has more political sense in one finger than CNN's entire harem of empty talking heads).

Winning a fight that you shouldn't have had to fight in the first place isn't exactly a victory one should be proud of. It's like a Republican proclaiming victory after a hard general election fight in South Carolina.

Michigan was supposed to be safe for Romney: He won it in 2008, his father was a popular governor, it's his real home state (and, yes, that does factor in). Had this primary been a week ago, he could have lost the popular vote. Like Florida, he had to pour massive resources into the state that was not planned for, and he may still not win the majority of delegates (Again, weird distribution system based on congressional districts).

Seekster:
One thing people seem to be failing to mention is that Romney beat Santorum among Tea Party voters too. Santorum is slowly being revealed as just another Washington politician. At this point the only thing keeping me from outright endorsing Romney is my policy against endorsing candidates. Among the 5 people who are seeking the Presidency (well 5 that are actually on the ballots in most places, 5 includes Obama) Romney is probably the only one that isnt too partisan or too divisive to be an effective President. He doesnt really thrill anybody but he doesnt generate the kind of hatred that the other 4 men seeking the Presidency garner. Plus Rush Limbaugh seems to have a personal problem with Mitt and that makes supporting him that much more fun.

The exit polling I'm reading is a little different. In Michigan, Romney won "somewhat support/oppose/neutral the Tea Party" but Santorum won both "Strongly Support" and "Strongly Oppose." Romney also lost significantly among self-described "Very conservative" voters and barely won half of the "somewhat conservative" voters. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and Fox News all have identical results.

Voter excitement/passion is also extremely important in unseating an incumbent president. Cases-on-point: 1996 and 2004. In both cases, the non-incumbent candidate (Dole and Kerry, respectively) could not elicit any substantial passion from a voter base. Both were considered the "safe picks" by their respective party leadership and both were sunk in the general election. Romney will loose unless he can somehow make the base excited to vote for him. In addition, democratic voters have been getting extremely agitated by anti-union and hard-right social legislation in key swing states including Ohio and Virginia and will likely have above-average turnout for an incumbent election.

Playing defense and winning is still a victory. Ok no Michigan is not Romney's home state, Massachusetts is. Romney also doesnt support the Auto Bailout so that may have hurt him some in Michigan. Even so he did beat Santorum convincingly in Michigan (he won by like what 4%?). All this talk of Romney eeking out a win in his home state is just spin.

I can guarantee you that when Romney is the nominee people will rally behind him. I would also point out that Obama isnt exactly creating the excitement that he did in 2008 so its a wash. Romney vs Obama will likely be close and could go either way. Anyone else faces Obama and Obama would almost certainly win.

I'm really quite disappointed that Michigan voted for Romney. Are our memories really that short, or is Santorum really that nutty[1]?

[1] Note: if there are nuts in your Santorum, contact your doctor.

Seekster:

I can guarantee you that when Romney is the nominee people will rally behind him. I would also point out that Obama isnt exactly creating the excitement that he did in 2008 so its a wash. Romney vs Obama will likely be close and could go either way. Anyone else faces Obama and Obama would almost certainly win.

Seriously, stop disregarding someone entirely.

Ron Paul pulls in independants and democrats so that he matches up against Obama just as well as Mitt Romney despite people like you saying that as a republican they'd vote for Obama over Paul.

tstorm823:

Seekster:

I can guarantee you that when Romney is the nominee people will rally behind him. I would also point out that Obama isnt exactly creating the excitement that he did in 2008 so its a wash. Romney vs Obama will likely be close and could go either way. Anyone else faces Obama and Obama would almost certainly win.

Seriously, stop disregarding someone entirely.

Ron Paul pulls in independants and democrats so that he matches up against Obama just as well as Mitt Romney despite people like you saying that as a republican they'd vote for Obama over Paul.

Ha, oh no if Paul managed to win the nomination then after mourning the sudden deaths of Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum (the inference by the way being that the only way Paul could win the nomination would be if the other people in the contest suddenly died and even then its iffy) I would happily vote for Paul over Obama.

Look I have nothing personal against Ron Paul and in fact I like his as a person and I think he is absolutely right on a number of issues (not foreign policy though). The man is still never going to be President.

Seekster:

Ha, oh no if Paul managed to win the nomination then after mourning the sudden deaths of Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum (the inference by the way being that the only way Paul could win the nomination would be if the other people in the contest suddenly died and even then its iffy) I would happily vote for Paul over Obama.

Look I have nothing personal against Ron Paul and in fact I like his as a person and I think he is absolutely right on a number of issues (not foreign policy though). The man is still never going to be President.

Well, I have no idea why you think santorum or gingrich is beating paul. I also have no idea why you think building a literal perimeter around the nation of Iran is a worthwhile investment. I'm fine with him not being president if in return everyone who says they don't like his foreign policy admits that war is economically draining and our foreign policy is wasteful and antagonistic.

My original multi-paragraph response was eaten by the Wednesday lag and I don't feel like retyping it all except for this:

Seekster:
I can guarantee you that when Romney is the nominee people will rally behind him.

That's exactly what they said about Dole and Kerry.

The Gentleman:
My original multi-paragraph response was eaten by the Wednesday lag and I don't feel like retyping it all except for this:

Seekster:
I can guarantee you that when Romney is the nominee people will rally behind him.

That's exactly what they said about Dole and Kerry.

And thats what they said about Obama during the Obama vs Hillary battle.

This may end up like Dole or Kerry but it could end up like Obama too. The thing was in 2004 Bush was and remains quite popular with the people who supported who supported him.

Romney can beat Obama but he has to make enough people vote for him because they like him and not just vote for him because they don't like Obama.

Seekster:

The Gentleman:
My original multi-paragraph response was eaten by the Wednesday lag and I don't feel like retyping it all except for this:

Seekster:
I can guarantee you that when Romney is the nominee people will rally behind him.

That's exactly what they said about Dole and Kerry.

And thats what they said about Obama during the Obama vs Hillary battle.

Except Obama wasn't the "safe choice" or even the "moderate choice" (not at the time, his actual presidency has been quite a let down for the rest of the world that desperately hoped his election would return rational economic policy based on regulating self-destructive industries). Hell, it wasn't even an incumbent race. Incumbent and non-incumbent races are two completely different animals.

Seekster:
This may end up like Dole or Kerry but it could end up like Obama too. The thing was in 2004 Bush was and remains quite popular with the people who supported who supported him.

I would hope someone would be popular among his supporters (although recent polling among Romney supporters suggests that is not entirely universal).

Seekster:
Romney can beat Obama but he has to make enough people vote for him because they like him and not just vote for him because they don't like Obama.

And here is Romney's big problem. People don't like him. There was literally a poll did earlier this month finding that 2-to-1 "Americans say the more they learn about Romney, the less they like him" (paragraph 6). His numerous statements (this week: his wife has multiple Cadillacs and he couldn't remember if he got the Mustang for his birthday or Christmas) have only served to alienate him even further. People need to like you to vote for you, not just hate the other guy, and Romney's plastic routine just isn't likable.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:

The Gentleman:
My original multi-paragraph response was eaten by the Wednesday lag and I don't feel like retyping it all except for this:

That's exactly what they said about Dole and Kerry.

And thats what they said about Obama during the Obama vs Hillary battle.

Except Obama wasn't the "safe choice" or even the "moderate choice" (not at the time, his actual presidency has been quite a let down for the rest of the world that desperately hoped his election would return rational economic policy based on regulating self-destructive industries). Hell, it wasn't even an incumbent race. Incumbent and non-incumbent races are two completely different animals.

Seekster:
This may end up like Dole or Kerry but it could end up like Obama too. The thing was in 2004 Bush was and remains quite popular with the people who supported who supported him.

I would hope someone would be popular among his supporters (although recent polling among Romney supporters suggests that is not entirely universal).

Seekster:
Romney can beat Obama but he has to make enough people vote for him because they like him and not just vote for him because they don't like Obama.

And here is Romney's big problem. People don't like him. There was literally a poll did earlier this month finding that 2-to-1 "Americans say the more they learn about Romney, the less they like him" (paragraph 6). His numerous statements (this week: his wife has multiple Cadillacs and he couldn't remember if he got the Mustang for his birthday or Christmas) have only served to alienate him even further. People need to like you to vote for you, not just hate the other guy, and Romney's plastic routine just isn't likable.

True incumbent races give an advantage the the incumbent. Still Obama should be at the height of his advantage at this stage which means he is vulnerable considering how low this zenith is. He still has the advantage but he is pretty vulnerable for an incumbent.

Kerry supporters hated Bush more than they liked Kerry. Its very very hard to win an election like that. Romney though is much more likable than Kerry or McCain for that matter. Conservatives had a long standing disdain for McCain even before 2008. Romney is someone that few people have strong feelings about one way or another, at least at this stage.

Yes that would be a major disadvantage if the same thing weren't true for Obama. As it stands it basically a wash in the likability category.

Incidentally Romney had one of his best speeches last night and I also noticed that his wife seems much more relate-able than he does, he should use that. Obama should consider doing the same with his wife. By all accounts including some from Conservatives (and from my own mother and sister who met her in person) Michelle Obama is a fully classy woman and its a wonder how someone like her could fall for a snob like Barrack Obama but meh love doesnt have to make sense and I wish both of them a happy life once Barrack returns to being a private citizen.

tstorm823:

Ron Paul pulls in independants and democrats so that he matches up against Obama just as well as Mitt Romney despite people like you saying that as a republican they'd vote for Obama over Paul.

You might want to brace yourself for HORRIBLE, SOUL-CRUSHING disappointment.

The Gentleman:
His numerous statements (this week: his wife has multiple Cadillacs and he couldn't remember if he got the Mustang for his birthday or Christmas) have only served to alienate him even further.

This statement doesent exactly suprise me (off-topic: was it a '60s Mustang? If so, lucky duck. >:( People have to remember that Romney is the 2nd richest man to run for president in this nations history, with a net worth of around $550 million. I am sure that the only reason people dont exactly trust him is because they are caught up in class warfare diolouge from Obama, thus they think the rich are "evil". But the richest man to run (and win) office was John F. Kennedy with $1 billion in personal wealth, and he was and still is one of the most popular presidents in American history.

BOOM headshot65:
People have to remember that Romney is the 2nd richest man to run for president in this nations history, with a net worth of around $550 million.

I didn't NEED any extra reasons not to vote for him, but one more never hurts. Thanks!

BOOM headshot65:
I am sure that the only reason people dont exactly trust him is because they are caught up in class warfare diolouge from Obama, thus they think the rich are "evil".

Dood, the Rich-are-evil talk isn't FROM Obama, he's at most riding the ongoing wave as people are finally starting to notice that for the last 30-odd years, money has only been trickling UP.

I don't think the rich are 'evil' any more than a man-eating tiger is 'evil'. It's just that, like the tiger and the human, the interests of the rich and the lower classes are inevitably opposed to each other.

And it's funny how it's only called 'class warfare' when the poor try fighting back. I haven't heard you guys calling Governor Walker's union-busting 'class warfare'.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked