Romney will be the GOP nominee [Archive]

View Full Version : Romney will be the GOP nominee

Pages : [1] 2

RandomGuy

11-03-2011, 11:32 AM

Is there anyone who seriously doubts this inevitable conclusion?

It seemed readily obvious to me a while back.

Hell, when Pat Crazy-itis Robertson says you are collectively batshit crazy right, it seems time to find the guy closer to the center.

Seems like the choice will be between the giant douchebag and shit sandwich again.

MannyIsGod

11-03-2011, 11:36 AM

He's the only fucking normal one.

RandomGuy

11-03-2011, 11:43 AM

He's the only fucking normal one.

"normal" for the US population, sure.

The problem for the GOP is that the other candidates seem to be the "normal" for the GOP. The bigger problem for the GOP is that they don't recognize this problem.

I feel sorry for the sane wing of the Republican party.

baseline bum

11-03-2011, 11:44 AM

Worst election since Bush/Gore. LOL democracy

baseline bum

11-03-2011, 11:48 AM

He's the only fucking normal one.

Least grossly abnormal is probably a better characterization.

silverblk mystix

11-03-2011, 11:55 AM

as normal as someone named "Mitt" can be...

mingus

11-03-2011, 11:57 AM

i don't like Mitt and i don't like any of the other candidates. if this is all the GOP can put forth i might not even vote.

4>0rings

11-03-2011, 12:13 PM

If he wasn't a Mormon, he would already be the GOP nominee. Though he will anyways.

Winehole23

11-03-2011, 12:13 PM

He's the only fucking normal one.Jon Huntsman?

RandomGuy

11-03-2011, 12:18 PM

Jon Huntsman?

Good point. I could actually hold my nose and almost vote for him.

In the end though I would want to keep the crazies in the GOP as far away from positions of power in the executive branch as possible.

Any Republican president would be forced to appoint some of the crazies somewhere. (shudders)

Fuck that.

101A

11-03-2011, 12:21 PM

Romney.

Does anyone think Mitt Fucking Romney has any solution to anything; if he is not the definition of "same old, same old" I don't know what is. Nothing original, nothing daring; milquetoast - I'll vote Obama (has been worse than I thought he would be, btw)- just to make sure we keep divided govt.

If the country chooses a Republican now; in 4 years they can choose a generic Dem; we continue our slide to oblivion. This country NEEDS different; we CANNOT keep barreling down the path of crony capitalism; there is NOT a hairs breadth difference between what Romney and Obama bring to the table other than the name of their teams.

Oh, and Massachusetts? Dukakis, Kerry, etc.....Americans DON'T vote for these guys!!! Stop nominating them!!!

Must be the whole New Hampshire effect; gives them unwarranted early momentum.

I hope Paul runs as a third party; at least give me someone to vote for I don't despise.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-03-2011, 12:24 PM

i don't like Mitt and i don't like any of the other candidates. if this is all the GOP can put forth i might not even vote.

Only way this is going to change is by constitutional amendment to address the influnce of firms and organizations as well as eliminate the single member district that dominates the political landscape.

I do not necessarily want to the same choices as you but I think wec an both agree that we want more choices. Our electoral process is a joke.

RandomGuy

11-03-2011, 12:24 PM

Spurminator

11-03-2011, 12:44 PM

I wish Buddy Roemer was getting more play.

DarrinS

11-03-2011, 12:45 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

11-03-2011, 12:55 PM

Romney will win by default. FUCK!!!!

I was really hoping Paul Ryan would run. I could easily see him holding his own in a debate vs. Obama. Problem is, he believes in serious entitlement reform, which is badly needed (here and in EU), but is widely unpopular.

And he is never going to so much as sniff the nomination with all the baby boomers dominating the electorate. SS/Medicare are sacred cows because of it.

baseline bum

11-03-2011, 01:00 PM

And he is never going to so much as sniff the nomination with all the baby boomers dominating the electorate. SS/Medicare are sacred cows because of it.

Nah, Ryan bribed the boomers and planned to have every later generation make the sacrifice.

Winehole23

11-03-2011, 01:03 PM

What is TARP?

(In fairness it shd be mentioned that Mr.Ryan was against it, before he was for it.)

boutons_deux

11-03-2011, 01:26 PM

the big money (financial sector) will go to the predatory job-destroyer/asset-stripper from Bain Capital.

DarrinS

11-03-2011, 01:42 PM

If Romney wins nom by default, Obama wins by default.

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

Yay!

Winehole23

11-03-2011, 01:46 PM

Who do you think could beat him?

JoeChalupa

11-03-2011, 01:55 PM

He's the only fucking normal one.

Huntsman would be better, IMO.

JoeChalupa

11-03-2011, 02:03 PM

The GOP should have the election in the bag considering the unemployment rate, the economy and Obama's approval rating. But we'll see. Obama is the underdog in this election.

hater

11-03-2011, 02:14 PM

Ginghrich is gaining

hater

11-03-2011, 02:14 PM

The GOP should have the election in the bag considering the unemployment rate, the economy and Obama's approval rating. But we'll see. Obama is the underdog in this election.

except the GOP has a circus freak show as their candidates.

Winehole23

11-03-2011, 02:16 PM

Gingrich has climbed the way up to 12%. That's Rick Perry territory.

boutons_deux

11-03-2011, 02:23 PM

Nearly Half of Voters (Including Many Repubs) Believe the GOP Is Sabotaging the Economy So Obama Won't Get Re-Elected

With 51 percent of voters saying that jobs and the economy are the most pressing issues in the nation today, 49 percent said they believe that the Republicans are intentionally hindering efforts to boost the economy so that President Barack Obama will not be reelected. Thirty-nine percent disagreed. As expected, most registered Democrats (70 percent) agreed that Republicans are intentionally hindering the economy and hurting Obama, but independents (52 percent) and even some Republicans (24 percent) also agreed. [emphasis added]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_11/polling_the_sabotage_question033252.php

==========

Meanwhile, the House Repugs propose to affirm "In God We Trust" :lol :lol :lol

hater

11-03-2011, 02:28 PM

Sorry but Romney is done. He's peaked.

boutons_deux

11-03-2011, 02:29 PM

I read where evangelical leaders could go with Willard, but evangelical followers not really.

iow, all the Repug candidates suck badly, have major weaknesses, the common trait being dumbness.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-03-2011, 02:45 PM

I read where evangelical leaders could go with Willard, but evangelical followers not really.

iow, all the Repug candidates suck badly, have major weaknesses, the common trait being dumbness.

Only one that us in the vein if stupid a la wild choad is perry. Romney and Cain are not on that level. Romney's issue is nobody trusts his sincerity on anything.

baseline bum

11-03-2011, 02:48 PM

Romney is the only one who can beat Obama, and he probably would. Nominating one of the Christian Taliban would be suicide for the GOP.

JoeChalupa

11-03-2011, 02:55 PM

Romney is the only one who can beat Obama, and he probably would. Nominating one of the Christian Taliban would be suicide for the GOP.

Romney's flip-flopping could very well cause him the election. I don't see Gingrich and all his baggage getting the nomination.

baseline bum

11-03-2011, 03:01 PM

Romney's flip-flopping could very well cause him the election. I don't see Gingrich and all his baggage getting the nomination.

Romney is the only one that has a good shot to pull some of the independent vote, and he'll get a huge turnout from the conservatives who will vote anyone other than Obama. Any other candidate will only pull the conservative base that Romney would get anyways. I honestly think Romney would mop the floor with Obama, while any of the right-wing extremists would be the 2012 version of Sharron Angle.

boutons_deux

11-03-2011, 03:06 PM

Willard's biggest threat is the $100Ms he'll suck out of the financial sector.

"He Who Spends, Wins"

JoeChalupa

11-03-2011, 03:08 PM

Romney is the only one that has a good shot to pull some of the independent vote, and he'll get a huge turnout from the conservatives who will vote anyone other than Obama. Any other candidate will only pull the conservative base that Romney would get anyways. I honestly think Romney would mop the floor with Obama, while any of the right-wing extremists would be the 2012 version of Sharron Angle.

Oh, I do believe he Romney can win but I don't see him winning by a blowout. There are many on the religious right who will not vote for Romney and just stay home and the "stay at home" crowd could very well hurt Obama as well.

JoeChalupa

11-03-2011, 03:09 PM

And although the Unions are not as powerful as they once were, Romney's let the auto makers fail comments won't help him at all.

mingus

11-03-2011, 03:09 PM

JoeChalupa

11-03-2011, 03:12 PM

IMO, Huntsman is a good candidate and i'd vote for him. i like him from the start. what doesn't make any sense to me is he hasn't caught any claught in the GOP. he's basically Romney without all the flip-flopping/political prostution.

Huntsman is way too moderate for the GOP and the fact that we worked for Obama is an absolute killer for conservatives. In fact, anyone who works for or agrees with anything Obama doesn't stand a chance. That is why the GOP congress won't budge on anything. They are all on the Bitch McConnell wagon.

baseline bum

11-03-2011, 03:13 PM

Oh, I do believe he Romney can win but I don't see him winning by a blowout. There are many on the religious right who will not vote for Romney and just stay home and the "stay at home" crowd could very well hurt Obama as well.

I think you're hugely underestimating the hatred of Obama from the right. Ted Stevens could rally the base against him.

boutons_deux

11-03-2011, 03:13 PM

clout, you lout

mingus

11-03-2011, 03:15 PM

i dont think Romney would win against Obama. in the primary he'd lose for the same reasons Kerry lost to Bush: flip-flopping. he's flip-flopped on so many issues and he can't escape now and he wouldn't escape it in the primaries when the lights are brighter and Obama exploits it 10x better than Perry has.

JoeChalupa

11-03-2011, 03:15 PM

I think you're hugely underestimating the hatred of Obama from the right. Ted Stevens could rally the base against him.

Oh, believe me, I know and see the hatred almost everyday as it comes out of the mouths of the GOP leadership. But that doesn't necessarily lead to an election victory. Obama's base can also rally once again....OH YES THEY CAN!!!

JoeChalupa

11-03-2011, 03:16 PM

hater

11-03-2011, 03:16 PM

Oh, believe me, I know and see the hatred almost everyday as it comes out of the mouths of the GOP leadership. But that doesn't necessarily lead to an election victory.

yup. Bush got the re-election even though same hate was coming from Left.

actually this looks exactly like the Bush reelection but inverted.

baseline bum

11-03-2011, 03:18 PM

Politicians flip-flop; it's what they do. In a normal election I would not give Romney much of a chance, but in this one to get the Kenyan Muslim n*gger with no birth certificate out of office?

mingus

11-03-2011, 03:21 PM

Huntsman is way too moderate for the GOP and the fact that we worked for Obama is an absolute killer for conservatives. In fact, anyone who works for or agrees with anything Obama doesn't stand a chance. That is why the GOP congress won't budge on anything. They are all on the Bitch McConnell wagon.

i don't know about that. he's conservative on the issues social conservatives care about (abortion, gay marriage, etc). he should be higher in the polls. just like Pawlenty should've. it's kind of inexplicable who conservatives are throwing their hat in with.

CosmicCowboy

11-03-2011, 03:22 PM

mingus

11-03-2011, 03:27 PM

clout, you lout

sorry i dont spend my entire fucking day reading a dictionary so i can showcase my big vocabulary on Spurstalk. English is my third langauge.

Winehole23

11-03-2011, 03:40 PM

Is that the same 49% that doesn't pay taxes?Everyone pays taxes, CC.

Winehole23

11-03-2011, 03:42 PM

Why do you keep repeating that lie?

boutons_deux

11-03-2011, 03:47 PM

cc's a 1%er trying to screw the 99% by repeating the VRWC hate media lies.

CosmicCowboy

11-03-2011, 04:03 PM

Everyone pays taxes, CC.

income taxes...duh. You knew exactly what I meant. Why do you keep being so dense?

boutons_deux

11-03-2011, 04:07 PM

why do you leave out the key "income taxes" phrase?

With 50% of US workers grossing $29K or less, how much income tax do you think would be fair?

Winehole23

11-03-2011, 04:09 PM

why do you leave out the key "income taxes" phrase?Prefers to mislead, apparently.

CosmicCowboy

11-03-2011, 04:12 PM

why do you leave out the key "income taxes" phrase?

With 50% of US workers grossing $29K or less, how much income tax do you think would be fair?

The point has been covered over and over in here. You both know I was referring to income tax without having to type it out.

OK, so the stupid 49% that doesn't pay income tax buy the bullshit and thinks the economy is Republicans fault. got it.

Winehole23

11-03-2011, 04:15 PM

You both know I was referring to income tax without having to type it out. How is everyone else supposed to infer the qualifier when you left it out?

CosmicCowboy

11-03-2011, 04:16 PM

How is everyone else supposed to infer the qualifier when you left it out?

LOL

Hell, there is only 4 people viewing this thread.

Winehole23

11-03-2011, 04:18 PM

doesn't make what you said any less mendacious. a lie is a lie even if there are no witnesses.

boutons_deux

11-03-2011, 04:22 PM

Romney’s Estate Tax Cut Would Save The Koch Brothers Up To $8.7 Billion Each

Currently, more than half of the estate tax is paid by the richest 0.1 percent of households. And according to a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, the Koch brothers heirs’ would save a combined $17.4 billion in estate taxes thanks to Romney’s plan.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/03/360819/romney-koch-estate-tax/

====

Repug BIG LIE: estate taxes penalize small businesses. :lol

boutons_deux

11-03-2011, 04:24 PM

Is that the same 49% that doesn't pay taxes?

Study proves many U.S. corporations pay zero taxes

The report by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which examined 280 US firms, found 78 of them paid no federal income tax in at least one of the last three years.

It found 30 companies enjoyed a negative income tax rate — which in some cases means getting tax rebates — over the three-year period, despite combined pre-tax profits of $160 billion.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/03/corporations-pay-zero-taxes/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

CosmicCowboy

11-03-2011, 04:27 PM

Hey, I don't argue that there aren't way too many corporate loopholes. Nice straw man though.

Winehole23

11-03-2011, 04:28 PM

Taxes isn't shorthand for income taxes. Your consistent omission of the qualifier is revealing -- you really do prefer misleading propaganda over saying what you mean. That you continue to do so after having been called on it numerous times, by numerous posters, just reinforces my point.

CosmicCowboy

11-03-2011, 04:28 PM

*yawn* If you have called me on it numerous times then you know I was referring to income tax on the 49% number. Any astute politico knows that.

rascal

11-03-2011, 04:31 PM

I am voting for Obama no matter who the Republican nominee is. Conservative talk radio has turned me off to the entire Republican party.

JoeChalupa

11-03-2011, 05:02 PM

i don't know about that. he's conservative on the issues social conservatives care about (abortion, gay marriage, etc). he should be higher in the polls. just like Pawlenty should've. it's kind of inexplicable who conservatives are throwing their hat in with.

If I recall he is not anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage enough to satisfy the evangelicals. And again, he was worked for Obama and that just is NOT acceptable.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-03-2011, 05:59 PM

The point has been covered over and over in here. You both know I was referring to income tax without having to type it out.

OK, so the stupid 49% that doesn't pay income tax buy the bullshit and thinks the economy is Republicans fault. got it.

Whether or not they knew it is beyond the point. Fact is the statement was wrong and had someone who did not know that you are full of shit regarding taxation read it they would have been led to a lie.

49% of Americans do not pay taxes is not true no matter how you spin it.

Drachen

11-03-2011, 08:18 PM

http://images.wikia.com/harrypotter/images/c/c3/Captain-obvious-5-nobrain1.jpg

Nbadan

11-03-2011, 08:18 PM

Despite the bad rap Obama gets from the wing-nut and M$M, he is well liked by a wide majority of Democrats and has won more progressives over by ending the war in Iraq and promising to bring more combat troops home from Afghanistan....Romney would have to win over a very religious conservative base (though job for a Mormon) to have a chance against Obama's party synergy and he would also have to win over a majority of independents....I'm just not seeing it...

Borat Sagyidev

11-03-2011, 08:23 PM

Hey, I don't argue that there aren't way too many corporate loopholes. Nice straw man though.

Straw man? You care more about that family getting $500 a month in welfare over a company outsourcing Billions and thousands of Americans jobs.

What a pathetic piece of shit.

Borat Sagyidev

11-03-2011, 08:31 PM

Is that the same 49% that doesn't pay taxes?

Everyone pays taxes, CC.

why do you leave out the key "income taxes" phrase?

With 50% of US workers grossing $29K or less, how much income tax do you think would be fair?

The point has been covered over and over in here. You both know I was referring to income tax without having to type it out.

OK, so the stupid 49% that doesn't pay income tax buy the bullshit and thinks the economy is Republicans fault. got it.

Hey, I don't argue that there aren't way too many corporate loopholes. Nice straw man though.

*yawn* If you have called me on it numerous times then you know I was referring to income tax on the 49% number. Any astute politico knows that.

What the hell is this garbage?

the fact is that cosmic cowboy is more concerned about a family getting some welfare or paying no taxes than those precious unearned income earners sitting on their ass all day outsourcing thousands to millions jobs and trillions of dollars.

There is no point in arguing such warped bullshit, guy is more worthwhile as fertilizer. Jihadists negotiate and argue in the same fashion

hater

11-04-2011, 09:12 AM

Winehole23

11-04-2011, 09:59 AM

Nothing's a done deal. Candidates and momentum have a limited shelf life. At this point four years ago Hilary was still the presumptive nominee for the Dems, and Giuliani for the GOP.

101A

11-04-2011, 10:02 AM

..and Bush 1 in '90 had a 70% + approval.

CosmicCowboy

11-04-2011, 10:08 AM

What the hell is this garbage?

the fact is that cosmic cowboy is more concerned about a family getting some welfare or paying no taxes than those precious unearned income earners sitting on their ass all day outsourcing thousands to millions jobs and trillions of dollars.

There is no point in arguing such warped bullshit, guy is more worthwhile as fertilizer. Jihadists negotiate and argue in the same fashion

You are clearly too fucking stupid to read.

Corporate welfare and systemic generational welfare are mutually exclusive issues and equally fucked up.

hater

11-04-2011, 10:27 AM

You are clearly too fucking stupid to read.

Corporate welfare and systemic generational welfare are mutually exclusive issues and equally fucked up.

so a coorporation that makes billions in profits not paying a cent in taxes is just as fucked up as a family of 6 that makes $27,000 not paying taxes?

:wow

AFBlue

11-04-2011, 11:40 AM

yup. Bush got the re-election even though same hate was coming from Left.

actually this looks exactly like the Bush reelection but inverted.

I don't think this is the inverse-2004 because as hated as Bush was on the left is as loved as he was on the right. Obama has managed to become hated by the right, while losing favor with much of the left. Whatever enthusiasm Obama had engendered with his base coming into office has radically depleted over the past three years.

I agree that Romney is the inevitable candidate and as long as he doesn't pull a "Palin" out of his hat, this should be a tightly contested race.

AFBlue

11-04-2011, 11:52 AM

Romney is the only one that has a good shot to pull some of the independent vote, and he'll get a huge turnout from the conservatives who will vote anyone other than Obama. Any other candidate will only pull the conservative base that Romney would get anyways. I honestly think Romney would mop the floor with Obama, while any of the right-wing extremists would be the 2012 version of Sharron Angle.

I mostly agree with this take, though I don't think Romney will "wipe the floor" with Obama even if he is the nominee. I just hope Romney doesn't look at the mild support he's getting from the so-called republican base and make the same mistake McCain did in '08 when he chose Palin.

Wild Cobra

11-04-2011, 03:39 PM

Obama really was doing bad around 2 months ago. Then he started giving it to the Congress. And when Congress approval rating is 8%, that is the right thing to do.

He is pretty much in good shape for his re-election. With the freak show of GOP candidates that are mauling each other on a daily basis, Obama probably wakes up every morning with this face:

http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images/obama-smiling-5-12-08.jpg

sorry guys, but 4 more years is a done deal

..and Bush 1 in '90 had a 70% + approval.
Yep.

Right now with the republicans battling it out, Obama isn't being scrutinized so well. Once there is a single republican against Obama, and the battle becomes Obama against winner... the numbers will shift.

ChumpDumper

11-04-2011, 03:40 PM

Yep.

Right now with the republicans battling it out, Obama isn't being scrutinized so well. Once there is a single republican against Obama, and the battle becomes Obama against winner... the numbers will shift.Then they'll start the birth certificate argument again.

It's a sure winner.

Wild Cobra

11-04-2011, 03:45 PM

Then they'll start the birth certificate argument again.

It's a sure winner.
I doubt it, except for maybe criticizing how poorly he handled it.

LnGrrrR

11-04-2011, 03:46 PM

I doubt it, except for maybe criticizing how poorly he handled it.

Bringing up failed arguments from four years ago sounds like a surefire way to win the nomination.

ChumpDumper

11-04-2011, 03:46 PM

I doubt it, except for maybe criticizing how poorly he handled it.But you'll cut him slack on that, because nobody's perfect, right? It makes you like him more.

Hypocrite.

Wild Cobra

11-04-2011, 03:48 PM

Bringing up failed arguments from four years ago sounds like a surefire way to win the nomination.
LOL...

How many times do you think Obama will blame Bush?

Wild Cobra

11-04-2011, 03:49 PM

But you'll cut him slack on that, because nobody's perfect, right? It makes you like him more.

Hypocrite.

Sure, I will. But people like you have proven otherwise.

ChumpDumper

11-04-2011, 03:49 PM

Sure, I will.Which is why you just brought it up.

More sefl-ownage.

LnGrrrR

11-04-2011, 03:51 PM

LOL...

How many times do you think Obama will blame Bush?

It doesn't matter. He's the incumbent. He has a built-in advantage.

DMX7

11-04-2011, 03:51 PM

Next Argument: But... but... he said there were 57 states... :lmao

Wild Cobra

11-04-2011, 03:52 PM

Next Argument: But... but... he said there were 57 states... :lmao
And there are 57 Islamic states.

DMX7

11-04-2011, 03:54 PM

And there are 57 Islamic states.

Here we go!

:lol

Wild Cobra

11-04-2011, 04:03 PM

Here we go!

:lol
Hey...

It was obvious you wanted me to say something about it, so I did.

baseline bum

11-04-2011, 04:26 PM

Then there was the ipod.

baseline bum

11-04-2011, 04:28 PM

And remember when he painted the logo on his jet?

baseline bum

11-04-2011, 04:28 PM

And remember when he painted the logo on his jet?

DMX7

11-04-2011, 05:19 PM

He also put his feet on the Resolute Desk, you know!

(Bush did too, of course, but he's not black so that's totally different)

AFBlue

11-05-2011, 11:52 AM

It doesn't matter. He's the incumbent. He has a built-in advantage.

Normally I'd agree that the incumbent has an advantage as the "devil you know", but there seem to be a few factors working against him at this point.

1. Poor economic condition. It's often said that America votes with its wallet. Say whatever you want about who caused our current economic plight, the fact remains that our current president has spent trillions and lobbied for billions more with our country teetering on the brink of recession.

2. Polarizing candidate. In today's politically-charged climate it's hard to find a candidate that ISN'T polarizing, and Obama certainly isn't an exception. His policies, most specifically the healthcare issue, were a big reason for the creation of the "radical" Tea Party movement. The "anybody but Obama" factor will play huge in this election.

3. The record. Obama came into office on a swell of optimism for a changed culture in Washington...and almost no record of how he'd handle the seat. He's spent trillions, pushed a wildly unpopular healthcare bill, and much to the dismay of the voters who put him in office...he's been a foreign policy hawk. The last part is really the only area where he's shown leadership and strength, but again it's not an issue on which his base will side with him.

All of that seems to at least level the playing field, if not put him at a disadvantage.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-05-2011, 01:31 PM

LOL...

How many times do you think Obama will blame Bush?

He doesn't need to. You obviously have not been paying attention to what hes been doing for the last month. It really is 1995 all over again and hes following Clinton's playbook while the GOP is more than happy to oblige.

spursncowboys

11-05-2011, 01:32 PM

If Cain doesn't get the nomination then i would put my money on Gingrich. Romney and Perry are rich in money but not acceptability.

ChumpDumper

11-05-2011, 01:47 PM

If Cain doesn't get the nomination then i would put my money on Gingrich. Romney and Perry are rich in money but not acceptability.What makes you think Gingrich is acceptable?

Wild Cobra

11-05-2011, 07:27 PM

I don't think Gingrich will get it either.

Re-Animator

11-10-2011, 07:09 AM

Romney looked strong last night. He is on cruise control right now.

Winehole23

11-10-2011, 09:40 AM

https://www.intrade.com/imagecache/?&imageCacheGroupId=intradeV4contractCP&contractId=652757&width=296&height=144 (http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=652757#)

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=652757

101A

11-10-2011, 10:32 AM

Normally I'd agree that the incumbent has an advantage as the "devil you know", but there seem to be a few factors working against him at this point.

His policies, most specifically the healthcare issue, were a big reason for the creation of the "radical" Tea Party movement. The "anybody but Obama" factor will play huge in this election.

The bailouts created the Tea Party movement. The moment is easily found if googled. Happened on MSNBC.

101A

11-10-2011, 10:35 AM

RandomGuy

11-10-2011, 01:48 PM

Winehole23

11-10-2011, 04:55 PM

If Cain doesn't get the nomination then i would put my money on Gingrich. Romney and Perry are rich in money but not acceptability.

MR. HARWOOD: Since you mentioned Fannie and Freddie, Speaker Gingrich, 30 seconds to you. Your firm was paid $300,000 by FreddieMac in 2006. What did you do for that money?

MR. GINGRICH: You — were you asking me?

MR. HARWOOD: Yes.

MR. GINGRICH: I offered them advice on precisely what they didn’t do. (Laughter, applause.)

Look, look, this is not — this is —

MR. HARWOOD: Were you not trying to help Freddie Mac fend off the effort by the Bush administration —

MR. GINGRICH: No. No, I do no — I have never done that.

MR. HARWOOD: — to curb Freddie Mac?

MR. GINGRICH: I have never done — I assume I get a second question. I have never done any lobbying , every contract that was written during the period when I was out of the office specifically said I would do no lobbying, and I offered advice. And my advice as a historian, when they walked in and said to me, we are now making loans to people who have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that’s what the government wants us to do, is I said — I said to them at the time: This is a bubble. This insane. This is impossible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/us/politics/cnbc-your-money-your-vote-republican-presidential-debate.html

The records obtained by the AP reflect growing concern within Freddie Mac over a chorus of criticism from Republicans worried that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had grown too big. The two companies owned or guaranteed over $5 trillion in mortgages.

The Bush administration and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan were sounding the alarm about the potential threat to the nation's financial health if the fortunes of the two mammoth companies turned sour. They did eventually, when they took on $1 trillion worth of sub-prime mortgages and when their traditional guarantee business deteriorated. Commercial banks regarded Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as competitors and were anxious to pick up business that would result from scaling back the two companies.

Pushing back, Freddie Mac enlisted prominent conservatives, including Gingrich and former Justice Department official Viet Dinh, paying each $300,000 in 2006, according to internal records.

Gingrich talked and wrote about what he saw as the benefits of the Freddie Mac business model.http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mortgage-meltdown-freddie-mac-lobbying-held-federal-regulators-bay

Wild Cobra

11-11-2011, 03:23 AM

AFBlue

11-11-2011, 08:47 AM

The thing with Romney is he hasn't cracked 27%. There are MANY Republicans who WILL NOT vote for that guy (myself included). There will be an ABR (Anyone but Romney) candidate, and that person may very well win by default. He may not have the money, but I don't care how much money a guy has, or how many ads I see pro-Romney, I ain't voting for that guy....ever. I think there are many that share my feelings.

You might feel that way, but I am guessing that there are still a plurality in the GOP who will, when standing in the booth, realize that the moderate probably has the best chance in the general election.

At his point the other GOP candidates all have fatal flaws when it comes to winning a general election, even against an incumbent with a shitty economy who has disillusioned no small part of his base.

Agree with RG here, mostly because of point #2. Every ABR candidate to this point has flopped in one way or another. The most serious threat to this point is Cain, who has allegations of sexual harassment that will only draw more attention in a general election. And his chief economic policy has almost no chance of being fulfilled, making it an obvious gimmick to the intelligent voter. Who else is there? Who is your "guy" (quotes acknowledge it could actually be a girl)?

AFBlue

11-11-2011, 08:48 AM

Don't you love our lesser of evils system.

The ABR candidate will win because of the ABO vote.

In that case we're left with BO for another four years.

RandomGuy

11-15-2011, 12:34 AM

In that case we're left with BO for another four years.

Hell, I'll call that too.

Obama gets re-elected in 2012, barring some new political cataclysm.

The Republicans don't seem to be able to find someone acceptable to independents and moderates, and the Democrats will be able to paint whoever gets the GOP nod as an extremist neophyte, a Bush on right-wing coolaid.

Romney will get it, but will be so unattractive to a lot of rank and file Republicans that their turnout will be depressed.

Expect to see right wing nutbag radio and Fox "news" ratchet up the crazy in an attempt to get the base out to the polls for the Guy Who Isn't Obama.

AFBlue

11-15-2011, 12:40 AM

Expect to see right wing nutbag radio and Fox "news" ratchet up the crazy in an attempt to get the base out to the polls for the Guy Who Isn't Obama.

I would expect nothing less.

RandomGuy

11-15-2011, 12:55 AM

I would expect nothing less.

I take some consolation in that even Bush's throughly incompetant administration seemed to start getting shit right after about 5 or 6 years.

Obama's seems to have a steeper learning curve, as they seem to have gotten some shit together after about 3.

baseline bum

11-15-2011, 01:33 AM

Romney will get it, but will be so unattractive to a lot of rank and file Republicans that their turnout will be depressed.

You don't really believe that, do you? You're trolling, right? Have you paid no attention to how much the right hates that cocksucker? David Duke would rally the base against him.

spursncowboys

11-15-2011, 02:44 AM

If Cain doesn't get the nomination then i would put my money on Gingrich. Romney and Perry are rich in money but not acceptability.
Point-me

spursncowboys

11-15-2011, 02:56 AM

WH. I missed your post. I think the fact that this will be viewed by the right (who are voting for the republican candidate) as another attempt at the MSM to destroy another one of their candidates. My prediction will still be correct. I don't think Cain is out of it completely. But I think it is between those two. He doesn't have to explain it anymore than he has. the fact that they use the debates as a gotcha chance will bring him in some voters looking for a team to root for.

ChumpDumper

11-15-2011, 03:04 AM

Point-meToo bad Newt was for a health insurance mandate before he was against it.

spursncowboys

11-15-2011, 03:42 AM

Yeah CD, you are going to vote for a republican clearly so your insight will be more correct than karl rove 2.0 (me)

ChumpDumper

11-15-2011, 03:48 AM

Yeah CD, you are going to vote for a republican clearly so your insight will be more correct than karl rove 2.0 (me)It's OK that you were ignorant of Newt's support of a health insurance mandate.

Don't get mad.

spursncowboys

11-15-2011, 03:52 AM

Your comment, regardless of the inaccuracy of said comment, is irrelevant to my point.

ChumpDumper

11-15-2011, 03:56 AM

Your comment, regardless of the inaccuracy of said comment, is irrelevant to my point.Your ignorance is completely relevant here.

And prove it is inaccurate, asshole.

I have posted a link to a video of Newt's pimping a health insurance mandate on this very forum.

See if you can find it.

Asshole.

spursncowboys

11-15-2011, 04:08 AM

Your comment was about my knowledge. Something you cannot disprove. ha...ha...ha...i am done.

ChumpDumper

11-15-2011, 04:09 AM

Your comment was about my knowledge. Something you cannot disprove. It was about your ignorance, which you proved yourself.

ha...ha...ha...i am done.Yes, you are.

spursncowboys

11-15-2011, 04:35 AM

But your opinion means nothing since you aren't going to vote for a republican in the primaries. So my original point stands. You are as worthless as a democratic strategist giving republicans advice or analyzing them.

ChumpDumper

11-15-2011, 04:40 AM

ha...ha...ha...i am done.:lol

spursncowboys

11-15-2011, 06:12 AM

steer clear logic. cd is driving by.

ChumpDumper

11-15-2011, 06:40 AM

Steer clear, easily verifiable common knowledge -- spursncowboys is ignoring you.
ha...ha...ha...i am done.:lol

spursncowboys

11-15-2011, 07:43 AM

lol

RandomGuy

11-15-2011, 08:44 AM

You don't really believe that, do you? You're trolling, right? Have you paid no attention to how much the right hates that cocksucker? David Duke would rally the base against him.

I don't underestimate how irrationally hostile the right is to Obama.

I go by what I see based on what right-wing commentators say about Romney, as well as what I see here.

I do genuinely believe it, yes, although I do keep an open mind about whether the slobbering hatred will overcome the apathy/antipathy about Romney.

RandomGuy

11-15-2011, 08:46 AM

101A

11-15-2011, 09:24 AM

Expect to see right wing nutbag radio and Fox "news" ratchet up the crazy in an attempt to get the base out to the polls for the Guy Who Isn't Obama.

Don't worry; BO has some carrying water for him, as well:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/14/cnn_reporter_asks_obama_are_gop_candidates_uninfor med_out_of_touch_or_irresponsible.html

101A

11-15-2011, 09:35 AM

I don't underestimate how irrationally hostile the right is to Obama.

I go by what I see based on what right-wing commentators say about Romney, as well as what I see here.

I do genuinely believe it, yes, although I do keep an open mind about whether the slobbering hatred will overcome the apathy/antipathy about Romney.

I'm should start a thread entitled "George Bush was, in all, a pretty good president"

I guarantee you the hatred for GWB from the left at least reaches that of the right for BHO - it is the atmosphere of this country. Ironically, the ACTUAL policies passed by either administration are indistinguishable. If you put a timeline of laws passed, and left out the switch in administrations, an observer would be hard pressed to point to when there was SUCH a dramatic changeover! Think about it! The left hates this guy; the right hates the other - but in ACTUAL practice, there is virtually NO difference. Foreign policy, domestic policy - WHERE is the big difference, other than in rhetoric? Got off on this tangent in another thread, but I am still amazed by it; we are getting played.

CosmicCowboy

11-15-2011, 10:05 AM

I'm should start a thread entitled "George Bush was, in all, a pretty good president"

I guarantee you the hatred for GWB from the left at least reaches that of the right for BHO - it is the atmosphere of this country. Ironically, the ACTUAL policies passed by either administration are indistinguishable. If you put a timeline of laws passed, and left out the switch in administrations, an observer would be hard pressed to point to when there was SUCH a dramatic changeover! Think about it! The left hates this guy; the right hates the other - but in ACTUAL practice, there is virtually NO difference. Foreign policy, domestic policy - WHERE is the big difference, other than in rhetoric? Got off on this tangent in another thread, but I am still amazed by it; we are getting played.

I think the big difference is in cabinet appointments and executive orders. There is a huge difference there...telling ICE not to deport aliens, the clear anti-gun drift of the justice department, The attack on states rights, EPA declaring C02 a pollutant, etc.

It is in the actions and oversight of the Executive branch that the President can have a substantive impact.

boutons_deux

11-15-2011, 10:13 AM

"actions and oversight of the Executive branch"

yep

allowing 9/11 to happen, then using it to grab Iraq's oil

lying to start and botch 2 wars while cutting taxes for the corps and wealthy

privatizing govt student loans

Medicare Part D

Medicare Advantage

not stopping predatory mortgage lending

firing a US Attorney for jailing a Repug crook

CosmicCowboy

11-15-2011, 10:37 AM

boutons_deux

11-15-2011, 10:46 AM

Whether the US/UK oilcos got the oil they targeted, and they certainly didn't get it under the type of ruinous contract they proposed, is beside the point. In early 2003, Saddam was excluding US and UK from oil negotiations, while preferring France, Russia, and China.

US is getting oil from Iraq, where there was none

http://38.96.246.204/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

now GFY

Winehole23

11-15-2011, 11:24 AM

I guarantee you the hatred for GWB from the left at least reaches that of the right for BHO - it is the atmosphere of this country. Ironically, the ACTUAL policies passed by either administration are indistinguishable. If you put a timeline of laws passed, and left out the switch in administrations, an observer would be hard pressed to point to when there was SUCH a dramatic changeover! Think about it! The left hates this guy; the right hates the other - but in ACTUAL practice, there is virtually NO difference. Foreign policy, domestic policy - WHERE is the big difference, other than in rhetoric? Got off on this tangent in another thread, but I am still amazed by it; we are getting played.More continuity than change. Meet the new boss, etc.

Winehole23

11-15-2011, 11:25 AM

There is a huge difference there...telling ICE not to deport aliensHowever this may be, deportations have hit all time highs under Obama.

101A

11-15-2011, 11:28 AM

I think the big difference is in cabinet appointments and executive orders. There is a huge difference there...telling ICE not to deport aliens, the clear anti-gun drift of the justice department, The attack on states rights, EPA declaring C02 a pollutant, etc.

It is in the actions and oversight of the Executive branch that the President can have a substantive impact.

This is a good point; but in the overall scheme of things, how much do those policies ACTUALLY make a difference in any of our day to day lives? They piss people off one way or the other - but don't, ultimately, amount to much.

101A

11-15-2011, 11:29 AM

However this may be, deportations have hit all time highs under Obama.

Shocked, I'm SHOCKED!

Wild Cobra

11-15-2011, 03:52 PM

However this may be, deportations have hit all time highs under Obama.
Could that be because of more border agents, more money, etc. put in place from legislation the former president signed?

I really don't know, but if I recall, legislation changes were made in the last administration.

Winehole23

11-15-2011, 03:55 PM

Really, you don't know.

Wild Cobra

11-15-2011, 04:17 PM

Really, you don't know.
My memory over the issue during the last administration is imperfect. I know some changes were made though. Wasn't the border patrol more than doubled?

Winehole23

11-15-2011, 04:21 PM

Dunno. Why don't you go look it up?

boutons_deux

11-15-2011, 04:23 PM

Do Your Own Research
--WC

Wild Cobra

11-15-2011, 04:30 PM

Dunno. Why don't you go look it up?
I know something was done, I'm just pissed every time Obama gets credit for something he didn't do, like the pullout of troops by years end.

I know something was done during the last administration, and I don't recall anything being done during this administration that would cause this.

I have too many other things to do, and I'm just making the point so people can decide themselves, instead of instantly believing something said. Not that important to me right now except to keep that on others minds.

Wild Cobra

11-15-2011, 04:31 PM

Do Your Own Research
--WC
Throw that back all you want. I'm not making a big stink over it, so chill.

Winehole23

11-15-2011, 04:40 PM

I know something was done, I'm just pissed every time Obama gets credit for something he didn't do, like the pullout of troops by years end.

I know something was done during the last administration, and I don't recall anything being done during this administration that would cause this.Political will? The desire to appear tuff?

I have too many other things to do, and I'm just making the point so people can decide themselves, instead of instantly believing something said.You've been posting constantly for the last half hour, questioning the bias and accuracy of other posters mainly, but you have too little time to back up your own PFA assertions. Telling.

Not that important to me right now except to keep that on others minds.You hope your dimly recalled, unsubstantiated assertion will prompt others to give Bush credit for Obama's numbers.

Good luck.

hater

11-23-2011, 09:52 AM

Ginghrich is gaining

Hater with the goods :tu

hater

11-23-2011, 09:52 AM

Sorry but Romney is done. He's peaked.

:hat

RandomGuy

01-12-2012, 11:35 AM

However this may be, deportations have hit all time highs under Obama.

Including it would seem American teenagers who got caught up in a sweep and deported without any real appeal to Columbia

Winehole23

01-13-2012, 04:18 PM

http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Richard_A__Viguerie_89C3B689-54F3-4B86-850C-2835BB5F330B.html

boutons_deux

01-13-2012, 05:42 PM

Mitt Romney Abandons His Father's Civil Rights Legacy

The Republican Party, founded by militant abolitionists and once the political home of civil rights champions such as George Romney, has since the late 1960s been degenerating toward the crude politics of “Southern strategies” and what former Republican National Committee chairman Lee Atwater referred to as the “coded” language of complaints about “forced busing,” legal-services programs, welfare and food stamps. But the 2012 campaign has seen this degeneration accelerate, as the candidates have repeatedly played on stereotypes about race, class and “entitlements.”

On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum told a crowd of supporters, “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”

Around the same time, Texas Congressman Ron Paul was scrambling to explain away old newsletters that went out under his name with sections suggesting that “95 percent of the black males in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” and describing the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday as “Hate Whitey Day.” Order was restored in riot-torn Los Angeles, the newsletters suggested, only when welfare checks arrived.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who spent the fall talking about eliminating child-labor laws so that school janitors could be replaced with poor kids, and who regularly refers to Barack Obama as the “best food stamp president in American history,” arrived in the first-primary state of New Hampshire and announced: “I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.”

All these remarks and revelations drew consternation. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People leaders rebuked Gingrich and Santorum, with NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous saying of Gingrich: “It is a shame that the former Speaker feels that these types of inaccurate, divisive statements are in any way helpful to our country. The majority of people using food stamps are not African-American, and most people using food stamps have a job.”

Now, as the Republican race heads for South Carolina, a state that has seen more than its share of racially charged campaigning, there is every reason to fear that things could get uglier. As recently as 2000, the Republican presidential primary campaign witnessed race-baiting phone calls that attacked John McCain for fathering a “black child” out of wedlock. (In fact, he and his wife had adopted a girl from Bangladesh.)

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165647/mitt-romney-abandons-his-fathers-civil-rights-legacy

==========

Repugs' racism in undeniable.

boutons_deux

01-13-2012, 05:59 PM

Romney’s Bain Job Count Goes From 100,000 to ‘Thousands’ in Six Days

Faced with attacks from the left, right, leftish, righter and center forward, Mitt Romney has spent his days in South Carolina focusing on trying to make people forget about Bain by talking about it constantly. After Sarah Palin and the rest of the world called out Romney, or at least called on him to get more specific about the alleged 100,000 jobs his work at Bain created, Romney decided to say Thursday that there was “proof” of those jobs on the websites of the companies that he didn’t bankrupt. But for the most part, the “100,000″ is being dropped from the playbook. In fact, in a matter of six days, it looks like the Romney camp has gone from saying “over a hundred thousand jobs” to “tens of thousands of jobs” to rolls-off-the-tongue “thousands of jobs.” Happy Friday to you.

http://wonkette.com/460264/romneys-bain-job-count-goes-from-100000-to-thousands-in-six-days

Winehole23

01-14-2012, 02:39 AM

I know something was doneI have no freeking idea what you're referring to, but in a broad way it makes sense. That Bush laid the infrastructure for immigration enforcement goes without question, classic big government Bush, and so in some sense Bush does does deserve --what? -- a tip of the cap or something like that, from Mr. Obama.

Winehole23

01-14-2012, 02:42 AM

Immigration personnel grew by like a factor of three under Bush, or something like that.

Winehole23

01-14-2012, 02:42 AM

a lot

Winehole23

01-14-2012, 02:44 AM

we all lost our minds after nineeleven. I don't believe we've recovered our wits yet.

Winehole23

01-14-2012, 02:47 AM

the disorientation is just beginning to set in. disillusionment will be tardy, as ever.

Wild Cobra

01-14-2012, 03:29 AM

I have no freeking idea what you're referring to, but in a broad way it makes sense. That Bush laid the infrastructure for immigration enforcement goes without question, classic big government Bush, and so in some sense Bush does does deserve --what? -- a tip of the cap or something like that, from Mr. Obama.
Most changes that any administration makes will not produce immediate results. Most changes take time. you don't just get double the enforcement if you double the manpower funds for it, for example. It takes time to train individuals for example. Quite often, policy changes don't take effect until some future date too. they are seldom immediate.

Imaginary example:

What if a policy change enacted in June '08 provided funding to train another 500 individual starting September '08, but only 100 per quarter, and the training takes three quarter.

Just a simple example. I don't know what the actual policy changes provided, but to give Obama such credit within his first year like he has been given credit for is almost certainly from policy changes before him. For him to still receive credit is also most likely from policy changes before him. Unless someone can show me differently, that's just how things pan out, and I will stick to my opinion that Obama's policy ideas have so far had no effect.

Wild Cobra

01-14-2012, 03:32 AM

Immigration personnel grew by like a factor of three under Bush, or something like that.
I should have read all the recent posts before posting my last one.

I knew it grew, but I thought it was only double. Would you agree that by a factor of three cannot be immediate, and the full effects take some time to see?

Winehole23

01-14-2012, 03:34 AM

I agree to nothing, but please, feel free to elaborate...

Wild Cobra

01-14-2012, 03:57 AM

I agree to nothing, but please, feel free to elaborate...
Fine.

Still, you say it was tripled. I will contend it had an effect.

Winehole23

01-14-2012, 06:00 AM

Fine.

Still, you say it was tripled. I will contend it had an effect.In the comment before the previous, I took pains to agree with you. Didn't you notice?

:lol:toast

boutons_deux

01-14-2012, 06:47 AM

Will Romney Lie His Way to the White House?

http://www.truth-out.org/sites/default/files/010912rom.jpg

In his standard stump speech, he tells audiences that President Obama wants, "to replace our merit-based society with an entitlement society." According to Romney, this means a European-style welfare state that redistributes wealth and creates equal outcomes regardless of individual effort and success.

It seems the substance of Romney's complaint involves President Obama's occasional references to "fat cats," his plans to restore the Clinton-era tax rates and his national health care plan.

the staple of the Romney argument is that President Obama wants to raise the tax rate on high income taxpayers back to the level of the Clinton years. Calling this sort of tax increase a redistribution that leads to equal outcomes regardless of individual effort and success is just nonsense.

Of course, having everyone covered by health care, which the plan will not actually accomplish, is not quite the same as ending the differences between rich and poor.

And the way in which the plan extended coverage ensures that Mr. Romney's friends in the health insurance, pharmaceutical and medical supply industries can continue to make great fortunes in the health care industry.

when Romney makes a comment about President Obama wanting to have equal outcomes regardless of individual effort and success, he is just speaking nonsense. This is a gaffe, sort of like when then Senator Obama referred to working-class whites clinging to guns and religion before the Pennsylvania primary in 2008.

Serious reporters would grill Romney and his staff to determine whether Romney actually believes anything like this or whether he just makes things up out of the blue in order to advance his political ambition.

it would be helpful for the media to tell the public that the Republicans have nominated a candidate who doesn't think that he can win the presidency without creating complete fantasies to advance his campaign.

http://www.truth-out.org/will-romney-lie-his-way-white-house/1326122881

Mitt Romney

01-14-2012, 10:20 AM

I so got this in the bag and the POTUS is guaranteed.

boutons_deux

01-14-2012, 02:19 PM

Romney Screams "Pampered Elite": How Toxic Will His 1% Image Be in the Election?

Romney's nomination could be problematic for the GOP for a very unique reason that is now coming into focus: He exudes top 1 percent-ness.

That Romney’s career in venture capital could cause general election headaches was established long before this campaign. It’s one of the major reasons his first campaign for office, a 1994 bid for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, crumbled apart. But his private equity past is a particularly sensitive subject in post-meltdown/OWS America, where decades of rising income inequality are suddenly a big part of the national conversation, witheven working-class Republicans concluding that Wall Street and big corporations have gotten rich on their backs.

What’s worse for Romney, as Joan Walsh pointed out yesterday, is that he seems incapable of talking about these issues without drawing attention to his own privileged life. And the more closely he’s identified with the top 1 percent in the public’s mind, the greater the risk there is for Romney of playing to type in unintentionally damning ways. Would a photograph like this — which is actually a TSA security screening but looks like a shoeshine at first glance — be troublesome for a candidate without Romney’s money and business background?

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/153764

boutons_deux

01-14-2012, 02:19 PM

....

Winehole23

01-14-2012, 02:57 PM

I think we knew that already. Indeed, thousands of such articles have already been written and thousands more will be written in that vein precisely, until November.

(The article's not so great you had to post it twice; my initial reaction was to ignore it twice.)

boutons_deux

01-14-2012, 07:04 PM

boutons_deux

01-14-2012, 07:06 PM

Theological Differences Behind Evangelical Unease With Romney

In South Carolina, where about 60 percent of Republican voters are evangelical Christians, Mr. Romney, a devout Mormon and a former bishop in the church, faces an electorate that has been exposed over the years to preachers like Mr. Roberts who teach that the Mormon faith is apostasy.

“I don’t have any concerns about Mitt Romney using his position as either a candidate or as president of the United States to push Mormonism,” said Mr. Roberts, an author of “Mormonism Unmasked” and president of the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, who said he had no plans to travel to South Carolina before the voting. “The concern among evangelicals is that the Mormon Church will use his position around the world as a calling card for legitimizing their church and proselytizing people.”

Mormons consider themselves Christians — as denoted in the church’s name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yet the theological differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity are so fundamental, experts in both say, that they encompass the very understanding of God and Jesus, what counts as Scripture and what happens when people die.

“Mormonism is a distinctive religion,” David Campbell, a Mormon and an associate professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame who specializes in religion and politics. “It’s not the same as Presbyterianism or Methodism. But at the same time, there have been efforts on the part of the church to emphasize the commonality with other Christian faiths, and that’s a tricky balance to strike for the church.”

On the most fundamental issue, traditional Christians believe in the Trinity: that God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all rolled into one.

Mormons reject this as a non-biblical creed that emerged in the fourth and fifth centuries. They believe that God the Father and Jesus are separate physical beings, that God has a wife whom they call Heavenly Mother, and that God and Jesus once dwelt on earth as men.

It is not only evangelical Christians who object to these ideas.

“That’s just not Christian,” said the Rev. Serene Jones, president of Union Theological Seminary, a liberal Protestant seminary in New York City. “God and Jesus are not separate physical beings. That would be anathema. At the end of the day, all the other stuff doesn’t matter except the divinity of Jesus.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/us/politics/evangelical-christians-unease-with-romney-is-theological.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Winehole23

01-15-2012, 01:52 AM

GFY, dicklessIt's not anything grand, but on the whole, I'm pleased with what I got.

Winehole23

01-15-2012, 01:55 AM

btw, thx boutons_deux, for editing the double post. not everyone's so tidy.

boutons_deux

01-15-2012, 09:09 AM

GFY, self-proclaimed forum cop

Winehole23

01-15-2012, 12:49 PM

actually, I'm a self-declared jackass. the forum cop moniker was bestowed by nice posters like you.

Winehole23

01-15-2012, 12:51 PM

who cannot take thanks for an answer

boutons_deux

01-15-2012, 01:30 PM

GFY

What the GOP Doesn't Want to Talk About

Republicans are indeed in growing trouble as more voters begin to realize how much the party's policies - dismantling regulations, slashing taxes for the rich, weakening unions - have contributed to inequality and the yawning distance between the middle class and the top end.

makes Mr. Romney and his party vulnerable, as he clearly knows. He said on Wednesday that issues of wealth distribution should be discussed only "in quiet rooms." And he accused the president of using an "envy-oriented, attack-oriented" approach, "entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God."

that it is un-American to talk about rising populist resentment is self-serving and hypocritical. Republicans, in particular, have eagerly stoked such resentments against minorities and the poor.

( eg: WC parroting the "envy", and class warfare against the rich, and defending the unprecedented accumulation, concentration of wealth and power because the 1% deserves it )

the essence of the "Southern strategy" that Republicans, beginning with Richard Nixon, used to urge white voters to defect from a Democratic Party that supported civil rights. It continued for decades with attacks on busing, affirmative action, immigration and welfare, and was sounded most recently by Mr. Gingrich, with his attacks on Mr. Obama as "the food stamp president."

Fanning resentment of the poor - and deflecting attention from the relentless Republican defense of the rich - is also central to the party's current political strategy. That's why so many Republican candidates and lawmakers keep talking so angrily about poor people not paying federal income taxes. That's how the Tea Party got started in 2009, when Mr. Obama proposed lowering interest rates for homeowners who were behind on their mortgages and conservative activists saw an opportunity to pit the affluent against their struggling neighbors. And that's why Mr. Romney constantly accuses the president of trying to create "an entitlement society," which is simply a variant on Ronald Reagan's welfare-queen anecdotes.

if Democrats dare to point out that the income gains of the top 1 percent have dwarfed everyone else's in the last few decades, they are accused of whipping up class envy.

Anyone who criticizes Mr. Romney's business practices now faces the absurd charge of putting free-market capitalism on trial. No one is trying to end capitalism, but President Obama is calling for more effective regulation to protect consumers. While Republicans attack a supposed "entitlement culture," Mr. Obama is calling for strengthening a desperately needed safety net. And he is calling for raising taxes on the wealthy, particularly for those on Wall Street and in private equity, to protect that safety net and reduce the deficit.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/9446-what-the-gop-doesnt-want-to-talk-about

Winehole23

01-15-2012, 02:24 PM

Gfy!

Winehole23

01-15-2012, 02:41 PM

:lol:toast

boutons_deux

01-15-2012, 03:32 PM

When Romney ran Bain Capital, his word was not his bond

, there is another version of the Bain way that I experienced personally during my 17 years as a deal-adviser on Wall Street: Seemingly alone among private-equity firms, Romney’s Bain Capital was a master at bait-and-switching Wall Street bankers to get its hands on the companies that provided the raw material for its financial alchemy. Other private-equity firms I worked with extensively over the years — Forstmann Little, KKR, TPG and the Carlyle Group, among them — never dared attempt the audacious strategy that Bain partners employed with great alacrity and little shame. Call it the real Bain way.

Here’s how it worked. Private-equity firms are always eager to find companies to buy, allowing them to invest chunks of the billions of dollars entrusted to them and from which they earn hundreds of millions in fees. One ready source of these businesses is Wall Street bankers hired to sell companies through private auctions. The good news is that when a banker puts together a detailed selling memorandum about a company, chances are very high that company will be sold; the bad news is that these private auctions tend to be very competitive, and the winning bidder, by definition, is most often the one willing to pay the most. By paying the highest price, you win the company, but you also may reduce the returns you can generate for your investors.

I never negotiated directly with Romney; he was too high-level for any interaction with me. Rather, I dealt often with other Bain senior partners, who were very much in his mold. In my experience, Bain Capital did all that it could to game the system by consistently offering the highest prices during the early rounds of bidding — only to try to low-ball the price after it had weeded out competitors.

By bidding high early, Bain would win a coveted spot in the later rounds of the auction, when greater information about the company for sale is shared and the number of competitors is reduced. (A banker and his client generally allow only the potential buyers with the highest bids into the later rounds; after all, you can’t have an endless procession of Savile Row-suited businessmen traipsing through a manufacturing plant if you want to keep a possible sale under wraps.)

For buyers, the goal in these auctions is to be one of the few selected to inspect the company’s facilities and books on-site, in order to make a final and supposedly binding bid. Generally, the prospective buyer with the highest bid after the on-site due-diligence visit is selected by the client — in consultation with his or her banker — to negotiate a final agreement to buy the company.

This is the moment when Bain Capital would become especially crafty. In my experience — which I heard echoed often by my colleagues around Wall Street — Bain would seek to be the highest bidder at the end of the formal process in order to be the firm selected to negotiate alone with the seller, putting itself in the exclusive, competition-free zone. Then, when all other competitors had been essentially vanquished and the purchase contract was under negotiation, Bain would suddenly begin finding all sorts of warts, bruises and faults with the company being sold. Soon enough, that near-final Bain bid — the one that got the firm into its exclusive negotiating position — would begin to fall, often significantly.

Of course, some haggling over price is typical in any sale, and not everything represented by sellers and their bankers is found to be accurate under close examination. But Bain Capital took the art of negotiation over price into the scientific realm. Once the competitive dynamics had shifted definitively in its favor, the firm’s genuine views about what it was willing to pay — often far lower than first indicated — would be revealed.

At such a late date, of course, the seller is more than a little pregnant with the buyer. Attempting to pivot and find a new buyer — which knew it had not been selected in the first place, but was now being called back — would be devastating to the carefully constructed process designed to generate the highest price. Once Bain’s real thoughts about the price were revealed, the seller either had to suck it up and accept the lower price, or negotiate with a new buyer, but with far less leverage.

Needless to say, this does not make for a very happy client (or a happy banker). By the end of my days on Wall Street in 2004, I found the real Bain way so counterproductive that I no longer included Bain Capital on my buyer’s lists of private-equity firms for a company I was selling.

The real Bain way may be nothing more than a clever tactic to eliminate competition from a heated auction in order to buy a business at an attractive price. After all, Bain Capital is seeking the highest returns for its investors. But Bain’s behavior also reveals something about the values it brings to bear in a process that requires honor and character to work properly. If a firm’s word is not worth the paper it is printed on, then its reputation for bad behavior will impair its ability to function in an honorable and productive way.

I don’t know if Bain Capital still uses the bait-and-switch technique when it competes in auctions these days (I’m told that it doesn’t). But that was the way the firm’s partners competed when Romney ran the place. This win-at-any-cost approach makes me wonder how a President Romney would negotiate with Congress, or with China, or with anyone else — and what a promise, pledge or endorsement from him would actually mean.

Would a President Romney, along with a Republican Congress, cut taxes for the wealthy even more than he has pledged to do? Would he not try to balance the federal budget, even though he has said he would? Would he protect defense spending, as he has indicated he would?

I have no idea how Romney might behave in office. I do believe, however, that when he was running Bain Capital, his word was not his bond.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-romney-ran-bain-capital-his-word-was-not-his-bond/2012/01/12/gIQACvQxwP_print.html

=========

More evidence that Willard Gecko is true, predatory 1% scumbag, will do and say anything to get screw the other guy.

boutons_deux

01-15-2012, 03:33 PM

.........

Winehole23

01-15-2012, 04:00 PM

double tap

boutons_deux

01-16-2012, 11:29 AM

On MLK Day, Romney Campaigning With Anti-Immigrant Official Tied To Hate Groups

On a day set aside to honor civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., Mitt Romney plans to tout his extreme immigration positions during a campaign stop in South Carolina today — with Kris Kobach, the author of Arizona’s and Alabama’s immigration laws, at his side. He will attack his competitors Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry for their softer immigration stances, which could resonate with South Carolina voters who support that state’s harmful immigration law.

“Mitt Romney stands apart from the others. He’s the only one who’s taken a strong across-the-board position on immigration,” Kobach said, and he told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto that Romney was much farther to the right on illegal immigration than his fellow presidential candidates.

Before he became Kansas’ secretary of state, Kobach worked for Immigration Reform Law Institute, the legal branch of Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled as a “nativist hate group.” One of FAIR’s main goals is to overturn the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which “ended a decades-long, racist quota system that limited immigration mostly to northern Europeans.” FAIR’s founder John Tanton has said that he wants the U.S. to remain a majority-white nation through limiting the number of non-whites who enter the U.S.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/16/404357/romney-campaigning-with-anti-immigrant-official-with-ties-to-hate-groups-on-martin-luther-king-day/

AFBlue

01-18-2012, 12:27 AM

His stance on immigration is a legitimate concern in the general election. A couple of the other surprising stances brought up last night that might give him trouble...detaining Americans indefinitely and not allowing reformed violent criminals to ever vote again.

Those are strangely hardline for a supposed moderate.

Winehole23

01-18-2012, 02:03 AM

Those are strangely hardline for a supposed moderate.Not for a candidate without any well-defined core.

Romney is only pretending to be hardline now, but if he is elected President and still feels the need to project "tuffness," there will be nothing pretentious about it.

AFBlue

01-18-2012, 02:54 AM

I think the "tuff" schtick is real.

Winehole23

01-24-2012, 02:13 PM

doesn't seem to be working at the moment:
http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20163000c1e25970d-550wi (http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20163000c1e25970d-popup)

boutons_deux

01-24-2012, 02:23 PM

I think the "tuff" schtick is real.

Willard Gecko is pampered, born-wealthy wimp. shtick is theatre, TV candy, it ain't real.

His Bain was also a liar, bidding high for company, scaring off other buyers, then reducing his bid, screwing the company down to a lower selling price. iow, his word on his bid was worthless.

JoeChalupa

01-24-2012, 02:28 PM

I must admit I didn't see Romney screwing up a sure thing.

Winehole23

01-26-2012, 11:03 AM

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/florida/2012_florida_republican_primary

JoeChalupa

01-26-2012, 11:29 AM

only a link?

CosmicCowboy

01-26-2012, 11:39 AM

Newts campaign reminds me of a B17 bomber flying through flak over Berlin...they just keep shooting chunks off of him but he still miraculously hasn't crashed.

Winehole23

01-26-2012, 12:04 PM

only a link?too hard to click?

AFBlue

01-26-2012, 02:04 PM

Heard some very sound logic that the states after Florida play very much into the hands of Romney. So if he beats Gingrich in Florida or keeps it close he should lock up the nomination by building momentum over the next six weeks or so. Also playing against Gingrich...there's exactly one debate in the month of February.

Winehole23

01-26-2012, 03:11 PM

not being on the ballot in VA and MO has got to hurt

JoeChalupa

01-26-2012, 03:37 PM

too hard to click?

Too hard to post contents?

JoeChalupa

01-26-2012, 03:37 PM

Tonight's debate should be interesting.

Winehole23

01-26-2012, 03:41 PM

Too hard to post contents?the link is relevant. ignore it if you wish.

SnakeBoy

01-26-2012, 04:10 PM

Tonight's debate should be interesting.

Maybe. Romney will be Romney so nothing to see there. Same for Paul and Santorum. The only thing interesting will be to see how skillfully Newt tries to work in attacking the media for asking him questions. With his poll numbers plummeting he should be pretty desperate to try for another "victim of the liberal media" bounce.

Girasuck

01-26-2012, 10:16 PM

Maybe. Romney will be Romney so nothing to see there. Same for Paul and Santorum. The only thing interesting will be to see how skillfully Newt tries to work in attacking the media for asking him questions. With his poll numbers plummeting he should be pretty desperate to try for another "victim of the liberal media" bounce.

I'm not a Romney supporter, but I thought this was his best debate so far. He received the majority of loud approval from the audience, and he neutralized Newt on several occasions, even calling ole Newt out on his state by state promises. The only weak point Romney had was with Santorum over Obamacare/Romneycare. He tried to recover, but Santorum made him look like a fool.

CosmicCowboy

01-26-2012, 10:25 PM

Done deal

Right or wrong Romney will be the guy.

The rest can pack their bags and go home. Santorum will concede after Florida. Newts ego will keep him in but he's toast.

Das Texan

01-26-2012, 10:37 PM

I'd just like to see Ron Paul secure a nice chuck of his own delegates.

AFBlue

01-26-2012, 11:32 PM

AFBlue

01-26-2012, 11:35 PM

Done deal

Right or wrong Romney will be the guy.

The rest can pack their bags and go home. Santorum will concede after Florida. Newts ego will keep him in but he's toast.

I don't think Santorum will go home after Florida. He said in post-debate that he had gotten more money in the last three weeks than in the previous nine months.

SnakeBoy

01-27-2012, 12:08 AM

I'm not a Romney supporter, but I thought this was his best debate so far. He received the majority of loud approval from the audience, and he neutralized Newt on several occasions, even calling ole Newt out on his state by state promises. The only weak point Romney had was with Santorum over Obamacare/Romneycare. He tried to recover, but Santorum made him look like a fool.

Yep Romney's best debate by far. He smoked Gingrich to the point that Newt cried uncle and asked to stop the bickering. Then Newt tried his usual attack the media schtick and Blitzer gave him the smack down.

I don't quite agree on the Santorum/Romney exchange though. Santorum had an effective line of attack but his inability to deliver it without looking like an angry kid having a temper tantrum negates any advantage he might have gained from it imo.

Paul had a great performance tonight. His best of the debates I've watched. Congressman Paul your in the oval office and Castro calls what would you do? Well I'd ask him what he wants :lol Fucking brilliant!

Jacob1983

01-27-2012, 02:12 AM

I know that this question has been asked a million times but is Ron Paul going to run as a 3rd party candidate? I'd vote for him as a 3rd party candidate. I still think it's possible that he could by some miracle get the GOP nomination if voters stop caring gay people, bombing Iran, and crying over abortion and start listening to the real issues like the debt, jobs, and overeseas building. If the Mavs can win a championship against a Heat team that had Wade, Bosh, and Lebron, and the fact that the Mavs didn't have homecourt then why can't this miracle happen too?

Can you imagine Ron Paul as a 3rd party candidate? I'm not an expert or psychic but from what I've read in the polls, he would get enough to be allowed to be in the debates with Obama and Gingrich/Romney.

SnakeBoy

01-27-2012, 02:17 AM

No he is not running as a 3rd party candidate (at least according to him). Politics ain't basketball so you may as well stop dreaming now.

Jacob1983

01-27-2012, 03:52 AM

Yeah but people are still allowed to vote for him as a write in candidate if he doesn't wind up as the GOP nominee or a 3rd party candidate. For me, I'm either voting for him or the Libertarian candidate.

Can someone explain to me why a lot of voters are idiots especially when it comes to Ron Paul on foreign policy? Why do people hate what he says on foreign policy?
What's wrong with offering countries friendship and promoting diplomacy?
Why do we have to bomb countries and force them to do our bidding?

I can't believe how rude Gingrich and Romney were to that Palestinian American guy that asked a question about Palestine in the debate tonight. They basically told the guy that he was a piece of shit and that Palestine can go fuck itself.

JoeChalupa

01-27-2012, 10:04 AM

Romney crushed Gingrich last night and I thought Santorum had the best night. Paul did nothing last night but did have a few good puns.

JoeChalupa

01-27-2012, 10:05 AM

boutons_deux

01-27-2012, 10:53 AM

Mitt Romney's Struggle With Truth Continues

Mitt Romney's inexplicable compulsion to fudge facts continued in Thursday's debate, threatening to undermine his credibility over the long term. Romney's blurring came, as in previous debates, when he was challenged on his past.

On Thursday, his two most noticeable fibs involved whether he'd seen an ad -- a reprise of an earlier debate dodge -- and the nature of one of his investments.

The ad in question attacked Newt Gingrich for saying that Spanish is "the language of the ghetto." Romney, however, turned to Gingrich and said he didn't know whether the ad was true or not and wanted Gingrich to clarify.

"Let me ask the speaker a question. Did you say what the ad says or not? I don't know," Romney said.

CNN staff dug up the ad and Blitzer read the script to the candidates. Blitzer noted that Romney finished the ad by saying he approved the message.

At an earlier debate, Romney had deflected responsibility for super PAC attack ads, saying, "And with regards to their ads, I haven't seen them." Seconds later, he spoke as if he'd seen the ad. "The ad I saw said you were forced out of the speakership," Romney said.

The second truth question involved Romney's investment in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which Romney said was in a "blind trust" managed without his knowledge by a trustee.

"What my trustee did is he loaned money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And they got paid interest," Romney said. "But what the speaker did was get paid to promote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

But, as the Boston Globe reported, the Fannie and Freddie investments were not in the blind trust: "Unlike most of Romney’s financial holdings, which are held in a blind trust that is overseen by a trustee and not known to Romney, this particular investment was among those that would have been known to Romney."

Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom acknowledged that not all of the Fannie and Freddie investments were managed by a blind trustee. "But," he wrote in an email, "in both cases the investments are not selected by Gov. Romney and he has no control over them."

Fehrnstrom added: "The campaign has produced 85 videos, TV ads and radio spots." Romney "doesn't recall every one."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/mitt-romney-truth-debate_n_1235573.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Winehole23

01-29-2012, 01:47 PM

An unlikely name crept into Thursday night’s Republican debate in Florida: Paul E. Tsongas, a one-time Massachusetts Democratic senator and 1992 candidate for president who passed away 15 years ago this month.

Romney, who exercised his right as a registered independent to participate in the Bay State’s ’92 Democratic primary, acknowledged years ago that he cast his ballot for Tsongas, who was vying with Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown for the right to oppose President George H.W. Bush.

Gingrich reintrodiuced the subject in an effort to draw attention to Romney’s less-than-conservative past. Romney replied: “Just a short clarification. I’ve never voted for a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot. And in my state of Massachusetts, you could register as an independent and go vote in which — either primary happens to be very interesting. And any chance I got to vote against Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy, I took. And so, I have always voted for a Republican any time there was a Republican on the ballot.”
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/27/the_democrat_mitt_romney_voted_for/

JoeChalupa

01-30-2012, 04:19 PM

If Newt really hangs in there until the convention will Willard be so damaged he cannot beat Obama? Or the anger/hatred toward Obama enough to carry him to victory?

Winehole23

01-30-2012, 04:21 PM

losing Florida plus not being on the ballot in MO and VA might be too much for Newt to overcome

boutons_deux

01-30-2012, 05:02 PM

being Noot is too much for Noot to overcome

AFBlue

01-30-2012, 06:10 PM

Newt got the "everything but official" endorsement from Sarah (!), which means his goose is cooked.

Mitt Romney

02-01-2012, 04:25 PM

I'm so excited I can hardly contain myself.

Wild Cobra

02-01-2012, 10:35 PM

I'm so excited I can hardly contain myself.
Hold it until you have an Aide to release it with.

JohnnyMarzetti

02-02-2012, 05:04 PM

Romney is out to get endorsements to end this quickly.

JoeChalupa

02-08-2012, 06:30 PM

Looks like it is going to take a little more time for Willard to wrap this up. Convention?

Winehole23

02-09-2012, 04:48 AM

Super Tuesday will either be clarifying, or it won't

boutons_deux

02-09-2012, 09:49 AM

GOP Insiders Preparing for Obama Win?

political pros are more sanguine. Among the factors:

Incumbent presidents are always hard to beat. The trappings of the presidency go a long way. Also, Obama will be very well financed and has the luxury of husbanding his money while Republicans deplete their contributors’ pockets trying to defeat each other.

Republicans are doing a lot of Obama’s dirty work for him. Gingrich’s attacks on Romney’s work at Bain Capital, where he made a vast fortune by downsizing businesses and outsourcing jobs, will be echoed by Democrats through the general election campaign.

Republicans give new ammunition to Obama almost daily. Romney’s statement that he is not concerned about the very poor is only the latest example. And if by some miracle Gingrich manages to win the nomination, the public record is filled to overflowing with his off-the-wall proposals, such as wasting hundreds of billions of dollars to build a colony on the moon for no apparent reason.

It’s starting to look as if the economy is on a steady, if unspectacular, upward trend. Considering how beaten down the economy has been, it might not take much growth for people to start to feel a lot better. Republicans will claim that Obama’s policies deserve none of the credit, but they also blamed them for the economic slump within minutes of his inauguration. Fairly or not, presidents tend to get the blame for everything bad that happens on their watch and credit for everything good.

Obama’s chances for re-election are starting to look so good that Republican insiders are already considering what it will mean for 2016.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/02/03/GOP-Insiders-Preparing-for-Obama-Win.aspx#page1

boutons_deux

02-09-2012, 11:14 AM

The Uninspired GOP Electorate

Even at this point, after Romney trounced Newt Gingrich in the Florida primary and the Nevada caucuses, there are some fairly compelling reasons for Republicans to pause before bowing to the party establishment’s decision that Mitt must be It.

First is the fact that so many GOP voters still can’t summon much enthusiasm for their likely standard-bearer. In a poll released last week, the Pew Research Center found that an incredible 52 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents consider the field of candidates only fair or poor. Just 46 percent assessed the field as good or excellent—compared to 68 percent who were satisfied with the contenders at the same point in the battle for the nomination four years ago.

In Florida, exit polls confirmed Pew’s findings: Nearly four in 10 GOP voters said they were unhappy with their choices. It is reasonable to assume that many Republicans who didn’t bother to vote—and thus were not sampled in exit polls—are probably even less enthusiastic.

Last May, as the roster of candidates was shaping up, just 43 percent of Republicans thought the field was fair or poor, according to Pew. In other words, the better Republican voters come to know these candidates, including Romney, the less they like them.

Still, somebody is going to get nominated. At this point, Romney has shown he can beat Gingrich almost everywhere. But that “almost” is important.

the South is the Republican Party’s heartland. Romney has shown in other contests that he can put a check mark in every ideological box—that despite Gingrich’s taunt of “Massachusetts moderate,” he can still win the support of voters who call themselves “very conservative” or who say they are tea party members. But maybe the relevant pejorative is the “Massachusetts” part.

So far, Romney has not shown that he can connect with and excite voters in the South the way Gingrich does.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/the_uninspired_gop_electorate_20120207/

JoeChalupa

02-09-2012, 05:07 PM

CNN reports Mitt Romney met privately with a small group of conservative leaders at CPAC's hotel today.

boutons_deux

02-09-2012, 05:14 PM

CPAC, what insane crap and lies will they spew this year?

JoeChalupa

02-27-2012, 12:52 PM

Yeah, I've agreed with this thread. Just when you think he's locked up the GOP nomination, he loses; and when it looks like he's on the ropes, he comes back. All I'm saying is that Santorum had a legit shot at taking Romney down and blew it.

JohnnyMarzetti

02-28-2012, 10:43 PM

The man will not take no for an answer.

JoeChalupa

02-29-2012, 03:36 PM

Who, if anyone, will drop out after Super Tuesday?

Agloco

02-29-2012, 04:04 PM

Newt should have disappeared many moons ago tbh. His ego continues to hurt his party. The good doctor should throw in the towel as well. Both should endorse Santorum for good measure. :lol

Wild Cobra

02-29-2012, 04:51 PM

Newt should have disappeared many moons ago tbh. His ego continues to hurt his party. The good doctor should throw in the towel as well. Both should endorse Santorum for good measure. :lol

The problem is, Newt is the best Charlatan among them, and he knows it.

AFBlue

03-01-2012, 12:19 AM

Santorum will keep the pressure on for a while, but he seems destined to fade over the long haul. Newt is counting on big wins in southern Super Tuesday states, but I doubt he pulls more than his home state of Georgia. Paul will continue to get his customary 10-15% in each state and pose no real threat.

Yeah, I'd be surprised if it's not Romney at this point.

Nbadan

03-01-2012, 01:03 AM

Romney or brokered convention at this point.....enthusiasm for Romney is way, way down, while events for Obama have been, well, packed, the wing-nut media's main focus at this point is to enrage it's wing-nut listeners with paranoid-hate mongering, God, country and gun social issues...

JoeChalupa

03-01-2012, 09:07 AM

Latest general election poll shows Romney with a 4 pt lead over Obama.

RandomGuy

03-01-2012, 08:07 PM

Latest general election poll shows Romney with a 4 pt lead over Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Average of polls is the other way around.

RandomGuy

03-01-2012, 08:12 PM

Romney given 87% chance of GOP nomination.

Obama given 60% of re-election.

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=84326

If one believes in the wisdom of crowds. I generally do when it comes to large scale events.

I think the Obama percentage will creep up there as the election draws near.

Romney offers a tailor-made narrative and specific gaffes that reinforce that narrative.

The last-minute people who tune in towards the end of the election (you know, the ones who actually get to pick the president) will have that ready-made narrative driven home by a campaign that has had a year to position itself to defeat that narrative, and a ten-figure bank account to do it with.

CosmicCowboy

03-01-2012, 08:14 PM

I think the Republicans have all blown it already. This ridiculous fixation on non-issue social issues has tainted the whole crew. Fucking idiots.

Trainwreck2100

03-01-2012, 08:16 PM

I think the Republicans have all blown it already. This ridiculous fixation on non-issue social issues has tainted the whole crew. Fucking idiots.

it worked in 04

also i'm gonna go ahead and save this post

CosmicCowboy

03-01-2012, 08:18 PM

it worked in 04

also i'm gonna go ahead and save this post

I would love to be proven wrong,despite my *hock*spit* feelings toward the current field of republican candidates.

RandomGuy

03-01-2012, 08:19 PM

I think the Republicans have all blown it already. This ridiculous fixation on non-issue social issues has tainted the whole crew. Fucking idiots.

Respectfully:

It isn't non-issue to the religious right.

I agree with your assessment. The ultra-conservatives have forced the Republican party so far to the right as to make their party's national candidates unelectable.

The GOP has purged and marginized moderates, and is now reaping the rewards of that.

I don't feel sorry for the Yonivores doing that.

What scares me is what those types of extremists will do when their agenda is marginalized.

JoeChalupa

03-06-2012, 08:12 PM

No real surprises so far and Romney is keeping his 3% over Santorum in Ohio. It is clear Santorum shot himself in the foot with his mouth and killed his own campaign. The JFK comment and calling Obama a snob did enough damage to move voters to Romney.

NASCARdad

03-10-2012, 02:58 AM

Mitt gets more delegates from Guam. This rascal just keeps on ticking.

Mitt Romney

03-14-2012, 07:51 PM

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29/clintsquint/Romneyownsit.jpg

jack sommerset

03-14-2012, 08:03 PM

I wonder who Mitt would pick as his running mate. It's hard for me to image the the last two standing. I think Paul or Cain would be a fun picks. God bless.

spursncowboys

03-14-2012, 09:44 PM

I wonder who Mitt would pick as his running mate. It's hard for me to image the the last two standing. I think Paul or Cain would be a fun picks. God bless.

Rubio. Jeb Bush. Jindal. Christie. Someone with conservative street cred. Probably in a swing state with a large electorate. Rubio has is if he wants it.

Wild Cobra

03-15-2012, 03:21 AM

I wonder who Mitt would pick as his running mate. It's hard for me to image the the last two standing. I think Paul or Cain would be a fun picks. God bless.
I don't count on Newt winning. Most republicans don't care much about them, and I'm pretty sure the majority are splitting votes between Gingrich and Santorum. When either of these two drop out, the other should gain the majority votes.

Disclaimer:

Just my opinion.

I shouldn't have to make such a disclaimer, but we have some real asswipes here.

JoeChalupa

03-21-2012, 10:23 AM

Jeb Bush endorses Romney. I see many more to follow to get Santorum and Gingrich to drop out.

elbamba

03-21-2012, 10:38 AM

Jeb Bush endorses Romney. I see many more to follow to get Santorum and Gingrich to drop out.

I think Ari Fleischer said it best last night on CNN. To this point, Romney has taken two steps forward and one step back. He is now poised to take three steps forward and one back from here on out. He will lose Louisianna this week but he will win DC and Maryland and probably Wisconsin.

boutons_deux

03-21-2012, 11:00 AM

G.O.P. Nomination Becoming a One-Man Race

Mitt Romney’s big victories in Illinois and Puerto Rico this week have expanded his lead over Rick Santorum by roughly 60 delegates, putting him ahead by 300 delegates over all.

Increasingly, the nomination race is entering an endgame stage in which it is less a two-man contest between Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum than one that pits Mr. Romney against himself. How certain is Mr. Romney to get the 1,144 delegates required to clinch the Republican nomination? And if he gets them, how soon will he do it?

Mr. Romney, who has 563 delegates, according to an Associated Press count, is almost halfway to the clinching threshold. But the voting calendar is now entering a slower phase that will persist for the next five weeks, until five Northeastern states vote on April 24, with 209 delegates at stake.

The soonest that Mr. Romney could officially clinch the nomination is May 22, when Arkansas and Kentucky vote. That situation would require Mr. Romney to win at least 95 percent of the delegates in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Oregon and the District of Columbia, and to receive endorsements by virtually all of the Republican Party’s 77 undecided superdelegates by that time.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/g-o-p-nomination-becoming-a-one-man-race/?hp

JoeChalupa

03-21-2012, 12:17 PM

Santorum will hang in there as long as he can so he can guarantee "his turn" spot in 2016.

boutons_deux

03-21-2012, 12:20 PM

InSaneTorum now, and always (unelectable, even in PA where he's very unpopular), is simply building his brand and cred for lucrative speaking fees.

Winehole23

03-21-2012, 01:17 PM

Santorum will hang in there as long as he can so he can guarantee "his turn" spot in 2016.no way. it's Jeb's turn in 2016.

Sarah Palin

03-21-2012, 01:57 PM

no way. it's Jeb's turn in 2016.

I don't think so.