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

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

Seekster:
By the way for the record, there are going to be 2 debates prior to New Hampshire. I will not be doing a Play by Play because I don't expect the candidates to say anything they havent said before. Though I think the debates will give Santorum a chance to make an ass out of himself.

Really? I pegged the reason for not doing a play-by-play as one of them being at 9am EST.

I will see if I can find a good highlights reel.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:
By the way for the record, there are going to be 2 debates prior to New Hampshire. I will not be doing a Play by Play because I don't expect the candidates to say anything they havent said before. Though I think the debates will give Santorum a chance to make an ass out of himself.

Really? I pegged the reason for not doing a play-by-play as one of them being at 9am EST.

I will see if I can find a good highlights reel.

Ah didn't know that was the time so yeah add that to the list of excuses...I mean reasons why I wont be doing a Play-By-Play.

Here's some highlights from the Saturday ABC debate.

Here's a more detailed play-by-play.

Since Santorum got second in Iowa, there was a significant shift in topics. For starters, they looked at gay marriage and other "social conservative issues" for a good long time with several candidates opting for the "ban gay marriage" amendment, including Mitt Romney. This made for an interested contrast when statements by Santorum stating that a state has the right to ban contraception (despite SCotUS rulings to the contrary) while defining marriage was apparently a federal duty instead (which, to me, makes no sense).

Paul got a lot more spotlight then usual, especially on issues relating to foreign policy and, in particular, how to approach Iran (he also got some questions leveled at him regarding statements made about Santorum being one of the most corrupt members of the congress). Paul on drug policy (he claimed the enforcement of drug laws were racially discriminatory) was also an interested deflact from his racist news letters. Huntsman, the former US Ambassador to China, got hammered for a rational China policy (and he made the big mistake of speaking Mandarin as part of his response). Perry called for troops to be placed in Iraq (which he pronounced "eye-rack"). Newt Gingrich tried to attack Romney on his time at Bain Capital.

Ron Paul is a cook on a lot of issues but in the fundamentals I agree with him . I do want a gold standard,having a coin satchel hanging from a tunic has been something the last few centuries have missed out on, BUT NO LONGER.

The Gentleman:
Here's some highlights from the Saturday ABC debate.

Here's a more detailed play-by-play.

Since Santorum got second in Iowa, there was a significant shift in topics. For starters, they looked at gay marriage and other "social conservative issues" for a good long time with several candidates opting for the "ban gay marriage" amendment, including Mitt Romney. This made for an interested contrast when statements by Santorum stating that a state has the right to ban contraception (despite SCotUS rulings to the contrary) while defining marriage was apparently a federal duty instead (which, to me, makes no sense).

Paul got a lot more spotlight then usual, especially on issues relating to foreign policy and, in particular, how to approach Iran (he also got some questions leveled at him regarding statements made about Santorum being one of the most corrupt members of the congress). Paul on drug policy (he claimed the enforcement of drug laws were racially discriminatory) was also an interested deflact from his racist news letters. Huntsman, the former US Ambassador to China, got hammered for a rational China policy (and he made the big mistake of speaking Mandarin as part of his response). Perry called for troops to be placed in Iraq (which he pronounced "eye-rack"). Newt Gingrich tried to attack Romney on his time at Bain Capital.

My favourite things were also Romney saying that Obama hasn't signed any Free Trade Agreements then threatening a trade war with China.
Santorum is as santorum is defined.
Perry really needs to drop out but he won't at least until South Carolina where he'll have the most expensive political television ad ever to use up some of that money I reckon.

TheGuy(wantstobe):
My favourite things were also Romney saying that Obama hasn't signed any Free Trade Agreements then threatening a trade war with China.
Santorum is as santorum is defined.
Perry really needs to drop out but he won't at least until South Carolina where he'll have the most expensive political television ad ever to use up some of that money I reckon.

An exchange between Huntsman and Romney during the NBC debate on Sunday was probably the most telling exchange by Romney yet. The notion that one cannot serve his country when called simply because he does not agree with the leader will not be well received by swing voters of the electorate.

The Gentleman:

TheGuy(wantstobe):
My favourite things were also Romney saying that Obama hasn't signed any Free Trade Agreements then threatening a trade war with China.
Santorum is as santorum is defined.
Perry really needs to drop out but he won't at least until South Carolina where he'll have the most expensive political television ad ever to use up some of that money I reckon.

An exchange between Huntsman and Romney during the NBC debate on Sunday was probably the most telling exchange by Romney yet. The notion that one cannot serve his country when called simply because he does not agree with the leader will not be well received by swing voters of the electorate.

Interesting article, and I completely agree with Avlon on this: "It's likely too late for the kind of popular surge Huntsman would need to win New Hampshire, though the polls are tightening. He remains the only candidate-including the clown candidates-who has so far been denied a broad surge of support. And, not incidentally, he is probably the most electable of the bunch against Barack Obama."

This matches with the trend I've been seeing in the far right since 2000, an increasing amount of ideologues who would rather immolate themselves than vote for the more electable choice. The lesson they took from the 2008 loss wasn't that McCain lost votes by jettisoning his principles to pander more and more obviously to the far right, it's that McCain wasn't conservative *enough*. I don't know where this will lead in the long run, but in the short term it's crippling this country by moving the goalposts more and more to the right. Has anyone seen the "Obama" rebuttal to Funny or Die's parody debate? Where he's the "seducer in chief" pointing out to Republicans how conservative he is. It's spot on, and yet he's being vilified as a Socialist. (Gods only know what any of these people would do with an *actual* Socialist on the ballot.)

pyrate:
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.

???

I think Romney will win, but that can't stop any of us saying that we want Paul to win. For someone who will so quickly turn to internet generalizations (such as informed and liberal, of which the internet is not neccesarily either) I'm surprised that you're not acknowledging one of the more important constants; relevance to the topic will not stop anyone from swinging their dick or saying something irrelevant. Like right now :)

Also is Ron Paul not a freedom lover more than anything else? He opposed the recent defence act, he distrusts corporations and buisnessmen, distrusts corpratism and believes quite strongly in individual freedoms. The fact that he wants to abolish nationalized healthcare says nothing about his stance on freedom, if anything it strenghtens his views on it becasue like video game review scores, there needs to be context behind a stance. Paul gives that context. That said, I'd still rather it be Obama than him but if it must be a Republican it might as well be a libertarian one rather than an ultra-christian psycho who'll just repeal Obamacare anyways.

As for the OT, I've already said I expect Mitt Romney to win the nomination. Paul won't win becasue he's too anti-militaristic and the US is a very militant country. Gingrich won't win because he's a member of the basically defunct current congress and he's simply too disconnected from the public. Americans, on-the-fence Obama supporters in particular, are going to support anyone but a man with deep roots in corporate America right now.

MoNKeyYy:

pyrate:
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.

???

I think Romney will win, but that can't stop any of us saying that we want Paul to win. For someone who will so quickly turn to internet generalizations (such as informed and liberal, of which the internet is not neccesarily either) I'm surprised that you're not acknowledging one of the more important constants; relevance to the topic will not stop anyone from swinging their dick or saying something irrelevant. Like right now :)

Also is Ron Paul not a freedom lover more than anything else? He opposed the recent defence act, he distrusts corporations and buisnessmen, distrusts corpratism and believes quite strongly in individual freedoms. The fact that he wants to abolish nationalized healthcare says nothing about his stance on freedom, if anything it strenghtens his views on it becasue like video game review scores, there needs to be context behind a stance. Paul gives that context. That said, I'd still rather it be Obama than him but if it must be a Republican it might as well be a libertarian one rather than an ultra-christian psycho who'll just repeal Obamacare anyways.

As for the OT, I've already said I expect Mitt Romney to win the nomination. Paul won't win becasue he's too anti-militaristic and the US is a very militant country. Gingrich won't win because he's a member of the basically defunct current congress and he's simply too disconnected from the public. Americans, on-the-fence Obama supporters in particular, are going to support anyone but a man with deep roots in corporate America right now.

The "freedom" comment was more in regards to how the reality of human behavior works when there isn't some level of restraint in place: 10% of any random sampling of people are assholes. That 10% can ruin just about everything in just about anyway. Most people aren't dicks on the internet; 10% are. Most people won't dump toxic waste into a river for a quick buck; 10% will. Most people wouldn't tank an entire company's future for a $100 million bonus on top of their already absurd salary for one year; 10% will (and, in many cases, did).

This is the fundamental problem with Paul's binary view of freedom: humans require a basic security (shelter, protection, reasonable income, food, etc.) in their being as a necessity for happiness and contentment, and many of those agencies and regulations that he wants to get rid up (the EPA for example) remove that necessary security and replace it with nothing. And when there is nothing to stop him, the asshole thrives, and the asshole does not give two shits about that other person's situation and would have no problem making their life hell if the asshole came out on top.

Chances are the contest will be decided unofficially at least in South Carolina. If Romney can win a state like South Carolina then I don't see many opportunities for his opponents to win enough delegates to stop him. In many ways I think the candidacy of Mitt Romney will be a test of how well putting forward a relatively moderate candidate can work for the GOP. We can talk about McCain all day long but no matter his politics the man was just not a very good candidate, Romney is.

On a side note it is funny to see Paul get actual criticism instead of just a wave off since he is technically a top tier candidate now.

I think I just found out the real reason why Santorum lost in Iowa, apparantly people were put off because voting machines use "science", someone invented a timemachine and went to back to 50's and Cruella De'vil was busy skinning puppies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54tyL-T__Fg&feature=g-all-lik&context=G24b4fb8FAAAAAAAACAA

Is it odd that instead of going out and actually celebrating my birthday tomorrow night, I will be watching the New Hampshire primary? Who needs friends, when you have politics...

MoNKeyYy:
.....Gingrich won't win because he's a member of the basically defunct current congress......

Uh.... Gingrich hasn't held congressional office, or any political office for that matter, for the last 13 years.

There could easily be a person who reads this who hasn't even been alive during any period where Newt Gingrich held a political office.

Bohemian Waltz:

MoNKeyYy:
.....Gingrich won't win because he's a member of the basically defunct current congress......

Uh.... Gingrich hasn't held congressional office, or any political office for that matter, for the last 13 years.

There could easily be a person who reads this who hasn't even been alive during any period where Newt Gingrich held a political office.

Well butter my rump and call me....wrong.

Last time I listen to my uncle on political matters. He said Gingrich was a current congressman and since I know Gingrich is very active in political matters I never really bothered to double check. I stand quite corrected =P

My point about the connection to corporate America and big buisness still stands though, even people who fundamentally oppose the Occupy movement and similar ideologies are getting tired of corporatism real fast.

Seekster:
Chances are the contest will be decided unofficially at least in South Carolina. If Romney can win a state like South Carolina then I don't see many opportunities for his opponents to win enough delegates to stop him. In many ways I think the candidacy of Mitt Romney will be a test of how well putting forward a relatively moderate candidate can work for the GOP. We can talk about McCain all day long but no matter his politics the man was just not a very good candidate, Romney is.

On a side note it is funny to see Paul get actual criticism instead of just a wave off since he is technically a top tier candidate now.

Gingrich or Santorum will plow through SC like a chainsaw. Romney MIGHT get 3rd. If people thought Iowa was conservative, South Carolina makes Iowa look like GLAAD World Headquarters. Pretty sure its legal to beat gays to death there.

I say Santorum. His extreme religious fundamentalism will be a huge hit there.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Seekster:
Chances are the contest will be decided unofficially at least in South Carolina. If Romney can win a state like South Carolina then I don't see many opportunities for his opponents to win enough delegates to stop him. In many ways I think the candidacy of Mitt Romney will be a test of how well putting forward a relatively moderate candidate can work for the GOP. We can talk about McCain all day long but no matter his politics the man was just not a very good candidate, Romney is.

On a side note it is funny to see Paul get actual criticism instead of just a wave off since he is technically a top tier candidate now.

Gingrich or Santorum will plow through SC like a chainsaw. Romney MIGHT get 3rd. If people thought Iowa was conservative, South Carolina makes Iowa look like GLAAD World Headquarters. Pretty sure its legal to beat gays to death there.

I say Santorum. His extreme religious fundamentalism will be a huge hit there.

Right now Romney has a convincing lead in South Carolina. Yes you are right that in South Carolina Romney should have a difficult time, however if he DOES win South Carolina I think you could almost call the race then and there. It would mean Romney can attract enough moderates and enough conservatives to his side to form a very potent coalition of support.

And no, you beat gays to death or anyone to death in South Carolina, they will charge you with a crime and you will face judgement for it. You make keep your ignorant and insulting stereotypes.

Sorry for the double post but this just in, John Huntsman has been bitten by a goat in New Hampshire, no word yet on whether he will drop out to nurse his injury.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/01/heres-goat-bit-jon-huntsman-matt-lauer-scolds-ricky-gervais/47106/

Seekster:
Sorry for the double post but this just in, John Huntsman has been bitten by a goat in New Hampshire, no word yet on whether he will drop out to nurse his injury.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/01/heres-goat-bit-jon-huntsman-matt-lauer-scolds-ricky-gervais/47106/

I think the man would loose his arm before he bowed out this year.

Gingrich is out too much posturing while he was ahead in polls and Rick/Pauls advertising campaigns really took their toll. Perry's "reconsidering" pundit talk for out. So to me it looks like it's down to Paul, Romney and Santorum in reality.

Money intrests (military, FED, Banks) do not like Paul I can see them going to just about any lengths to stop him from getting the nomination, Romneys a Mormon and lets face it to far right evangelical republican voters thats a pretty big hurdle. Santorum is probably the safe bet, candidates have been elected despite being consistantly second and he has far less skeletons in the open as the others, and goes mostly ignored from attacks.

If Santorums the best they can muster through Obamas looking pretty comfortable.

SourWhisky:
Gingrich is out too much posturing while he was ahead in polls and Rick/Pauls advertising campaigns really took their toll. Perry's "reconsidering" pundit talk for out. So to me it looks like it's down to Paul, Romney and Santorum in reality.

Money intrests (military, FED, Banks) do not like Paul I can see them going to just about any lengths to stop him from getting the nomination, Romneys a Mormon and lets face it to far right evangelical republican voters thats a pretty big hurdle. Santorum is probably the safe bet, candidates have been elected despite being consistantly second and he has far less skeletons in the open as the others, and goes mostly ignored from attacks.

If Santorums the best they can muster through Obamas looking pretty comfortable.

HA HA HA HA HA

Romney will get the nomination and Obama is anything but comfortable. Santorum the safe bet? Are you kidding me?

Polls have closed in New Hampshire. I will post the results in the OP when at least 95% of the results are in.

Seekster:

SourWhisky:
Gingrich is out too much posturing while he was ahead in polls and Rick/Pauls advertising campaigns really took their toll. Perry's "reconsidering" pundit talk for out. So to me it looks like it's down to Paul, Romney and Santorum in reality.

Money intrests (military, FED, Banks) do not like Paul I can see them going to just about any lengths to stop him from getting the nomination, Romneys a Mormon and lets face it to far right evangelical republican voters thats a pretty big hurdle. Santorum is probably the safe bet, candidates have been elected despite being consistantly second and he has far less skeletons in the open as the others, and goes mostly ignored from attacks.

If Santorums the best they can muster through Obamas looking pretty comfortable.

HA HA HA HA HA

Romney will get the nomination and Obama is anything but comfortable. Santorum the safe bet? Are you kidding me?

Oh had no idea you had a crystal ball mystic meg, could I borrow it soon lotto's coming up would be nice ta.

Seekster:

SourWhisky:
Gingrich is out too much posturing while he was ahead in polls and Rick/Pauls advertising campaigns really took their toll. Perry's "reconsidering" pundit talk for out. So to me it looks like it's down to Paul, Romney and Santorum in reality.

Money intrests (military, FED, Banks) do not like Paul I can see them going to just about any lengths to stop him from getting the nomination, Romneys a Mormon and lets face it to far right evangelical republican voters thats a pretty big hurdle. Santorum is probably the safe bet, candidates have been elected despite being consistantly second and he has far less skeletons in the open as the others, and goes mostly ignored from attacks.

If Santorums the best they can muster through Obamas looking pretty comfortable.

HA HA HA HA HA

Romney will get the nomination and Obama is anything but comfortable. Santorum the safe bet? Are you kidding me?

The whole Republican nomination this year is a mere formality, Romney will win the nomination and probably the most sane out of the bunch (thats right a mormon is the most sane) but even he doesn't have floating voter appeal needed to oust Obama. This is not a positive reflection on Obama though, at this point he is a lame duck President who has done little that he promised and doesn't have the balls to stand up to the GOP controlled Senate, he will still win solely on the virtue of 'not being the other guy'.

SourWhisky:

Seekster:

SourWhisky:
Gingrich is out too much posturing while he was ahead in polls and Rick/Pauls advertising campaigns really took their toll. Perry's "reconsidering" pundit talk for out. So to me it looks like it's down to Paul, Romney and Santorum in reality.

Money intrests (military, FED, Banks) do not like Paul I can see them going to just about any lengths to stop him from getting the nomination, Romneys a Mormon and lets face it to far right evangelical republican voters thats a pretty big hurdle. Santorum is probably the safe bet, candidates have been elected despite being consistantly second and he has far less skeletons in the open as the others, and goes mostly ignored from attacks.

If Santorums the best they can muster through Obamas looking pretty comfortable.

HA HA HA HA HA

Romney will get the nomination and Obama is anything but comfortable. Santorum the safe bet? Are you kidding me?

Oh had no idea you had a crystal ball mystic meg, could I borrow it soon lotto's coming up would be nice ta.

Sorry, common sense and the ability to analyze data and draw conclusions are something you have to develop yourself. I cant just give handouts.

Rage19:

Seekster:

SourWhisky:
Gingrich is out too much posturing while he was ahead in polls and Rick/Pauls advertising campaigns really took their toll. Perry's "reconsidering" pundit talk for out. So to me it looks like it's down to Paul, Romney and Santorum in reality.

Money intrests (military, FED, Banks) do not like Paul I can see them going to just about any lengths to stop him from getting the nomination, Romneys a Mormon and lets face it to far right evangelical republican voters thats a pretty big hurdle. Santorum is probably the safe bet, candidates have been elected despite being consistantly second and he has far less skeletons in the open as the others, and goes mostly ignored from attacks.

If Santorums the best they can muster through Obamas looking pretty comfortable.

HA HA HA HA HA

Romney will get the nomination and Obama is anything but comfortable. Santorum the safe bet? Are you kidding me?

The whole Republican nomination this year is a mere formality, Romney will win the nomination and probably the most sane out of the bunch (thats right a mormon is the most sane) but even he doesn't have floating voter appeal needed to oust Obama. This is not a positive reflection on Obama though, at this point he is a lame duck President who has done little that he promised and doesn't have the balls to stand up to the GOP controlled Senate, he will still win solely on the virtue of 'not being the other guy'.

If Obama does win yeah that would be a likely reason why though I think Romney has the ability to garner more voter support than Obama does. It will be close one way or another as I dont think either Obama or Romney is the type that can destroy themselves and tank.

The Gentleman:
Polls have closed in New Hampshire. I will post the results in the OP when at least 95% of the results are in.

With 17% reporting Mitt Romney is already projected to win with 36% of the vote. We already knew this would happen but this does make him the first GOP candidate in a long time to win both Iowa and New Hampshire (though Iowa was a defacto tie he technically won).

The real story is who finishes 2nd and 3rd. Right now its Paul with 25%, Huntsman with 17%, Gingrich with 11%, Santorum with 10%, and Perry with 1%.

*Updated*

With 66% reporting the GOP race goes like this:

Romney - 38%
Paul - 24%
Huntsman - 17%
Gingrich - 10%
Santorum - 10%
Perry - 1%

With 68% reporting the Democratic Party primary looks like this:

Obama - 82%
Write In - 10%

Seekster:

SourWhisky:

Seekster:

HA HA HA HA HA

Romney will get the nomination and Obama is anything but comfortable. Santorum the safe bet? Are you kidding me?

Oh had no idea you had a crystal ball mystic meg, could I borrow it soon lotto's coming up would be nice ta.

Sorry, common sense and the ability to analyze data and draw conclusions are something you have to develop yourself. I cant just give handouts.

Rage19:

Seekster:

HA HA HA HA HA

Romney will get the nomination and Obama is anything but comfortable. Santorum the safe bet? Are you kidding me?

The whole Republican nomination this year is a mere formality, Romney will win the nomination and probably the most sane out of the bunch (thats right a mormon is the most sane) but even he doesn't have floating voter appeal needed to oust Obama. This is not a positive reflection on Obama though, at this point he is a lame duck President who has done little that he promised and doesn't have the balls to stand up to the GOP controlled Senate, he will still win solely on the virtue of 'not being the other guy'.

If Obama does win yeah that would be a likely reason why though I think Romney has the ability to garner more voter support than Obama does. It will be close one way or another as I dont think either Obama or Romney is the type that can destroy themselves and tank.

The other issue Romney has is he may not get the vote from a large chunk of the Republican core vote, the evangelical right purely because he's 'not a proper christian', just can't see him getting enough support from anywhere, though I think we'd both agree that we will see a record low turnout this year.

And I finally figured what's been bothering me about Romney....

image

image

Anyone else catch how Romney's business career with his firm "BI" has basically been "Acquire company -> take as much money as possible out of company -> declare company bankrupt -> fire all the workers, take the rest of the money home"? Or do I just have my facts wrong?

OP Has been updated with the number for 92.4% because I have stuff to do and can't wait the next hour for the last few points. Nothing surprising about Romney winning, although it is the first time in over thirty years a candidate has won both Iowa and New Hampshire. Paul's second and Huntsman's third place finishes are likely to be more significant, especially if Huntsman can create a surge going into the larger primaries starting in February. Paul's delegates, which will number in at least a dozen by the times this race is over, could cause a problem in the convention should he elect for them to cause trouble. Whether or not he decides to do taht is unclear, especially since his son is a rising star in the hard-right GOP and interference with the nominating process could cause his son to be ostracized by the party.

I'll update the numbers tomorrow if I feel like it.

Stagnant:
Anyone else catch how Romney's business career with his firm "BI" has basically been "Acquire company -> take as much money as possible out of company -> declare company bankrupt -> fire all the workers, take the rest of the money home"? Or do I just have my facts wrong?

You have your facts wrong. As I understand it that is what happens in rare cases where the business fails. If you look at Romney's record you will see that this has only happened a handful of times.

Rage19:

Seekster:

SourWhisky:

Oh had no idea you had a crystal ball mystic meg, could I borrow it soon lotto's coming up would be nice ta.

Sorry, common sense and the ability to analyze data and draw conclusions are something you have to develop yourself. I cant just give handouts.

Rage19:

The whole Republican nomination this year is a mere formality, Romney will win the nomination and probably the most sane out of the bunch (thats right a mormon is the most sane) but even he doesn't have floating voter appeal needed to oust Obama. This is not a positive reflection on Obama though, at this point he is a lame duck President who has done little that he promised and doesn't have the balls to stand up to the GOP controlled Senate, he will still win solely on the virtue of 'not being the other guy'.

If Obama does win yeah that would be a likely reason why though I think Romney has the ability to garner more voter support than Obama does. It will be close one way or another as I dont think either Obama or Romney is the type that can destroy themselves and tank.

The other issue Romney has is he may not get the vote from a large chunk of the Republican core vote, the evangelical right purely because he's 'not a proper christian', just can't see him getting enough support from anywhere, though I think we'd both agree that we will see a record low turnout this year.

And I finally figured what's been bothering me about Romney....

Oh no against Obama a lot of people will support Romney who might not if the Democrat was someone other than Obama. I think the turnout for the Republicans will be notably higher than it was in 2008, in fact I would count on it.

As for the pictures, I honestly don't get it.

perry is out, gingrich is out, santorum pretty much has shown the non crazy states are not going to be stupid, so hes out. only leaves paul, huntsman and romney, romney almost a certainty though with 40k more votes over paul in NH

Seekster:

Stagnant:
Anyone else catch how Romney's business career with his firm "BI" has basically been "Acquire company -> take as much money as possible out of company -> declare company bankrupt -> fire all the workers, take the rest of the money home"? Or do I just have my facts wrong?

You have your facts wrong. As I understand it that is what happens in rare cases where the business fails. If you look at Romney's record you will see that this has only happened a handful of times.

All right, fair enough. Note to self: WildwoodClaire1 is a great source for geological and biological information. Not so much for politics.

Seekster:

Stagnant:
Anyone else catch how Romney's business career with his firm "BI" has basically been "Acquire company -> take as much money as possible out of company -> declare company bankrupt -> fire all the workers, take the rest of the money home"? Or do I just have my facts wrong?

You have your facts wrong. As I understand it that is what happens in rare cases where the business fails. If you look at Romney's record you will see that this has only happened a handful of times.

Closure rate for companies bought by Bain was around 20% within 8 years during Romney's time there. It's worse than other PE firms of the time but it went mostly for younger companies.
A few also went out after Romney left that were bought during his time there.

If you look at it as strictly losses/gains during his time there then it's a net loss for Romney to have it on his resume. If since he joined to present day then it's a slight net positive but only by about 20k jobs over the years.

The reason for that is most of Bain's success stories came from very aggressive maneuvering that ended up with the competition closing shop (Net loss of jobs) or being bought out by Bain and absorbed into the first company (Just about Neutral in overall numbers though the individual company would appear healthier).

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

Stagnant:
Anyone else catch how Romney's business career with his firm "BI" has basically been "Acquire company -> take as much money as possible out of company -> declare company bankrupt -> fire all the workers, take the rest of the money home"? Or do I just have my facts wrong?

You have your facts wrong. As I understand it that is what happens in rare cases where the business fails. If you look at Romney's record you will see that this has only happened a handful of times.

Closure rate for companies bought by Bain was around 20% within 8 years during Romney's time there. It's worse than other PE firms of the time but it went mostly for younger companies.
A few also went out after Romney left that were bought during his time there.

If you look at it as strictly losses/gains during his time there then it's a net loss for Romney to have it on his resume. If since he joined then it's a slight net positive but only by about 20k jobs over the years.

The reason for that is most of Bain's success stories came from very aggressive maneuvering that ended up with the competition closing shop (Net loss of jobs) or being bought out by Bain and absorbed into the first company (Just about Neutral in overall numbers though the individual company would appear healthier).

Even though I have said before that economics is not something I am an expert in, I can kind of understand what Bain does because the company I work for does something similar (though the circumstances are quite different). Basically its making work more efficient and closing unnecessary business units. Yes that means that people will lose their jobs but look at it this way, if they didnt then the company as a whole would suffer and even more people would lose their jobs because the higher cost would mandate lay offs.

I will say shame on people like Gingrich and Perry for trying to deceive people about how that works. They almost sound like Obama in the way they have talked about Romney and Bain Capital. A business is concerned with making a profit and its own survival, anything else is a secondary concern. It is for that reason that a business is efficient because if it is not efficient it will almost surely die.

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

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked