GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 3

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, Mitt Romney, who has staked it all on New Hampshire and parked his ass up there for the last 3 years can't even convince 4 our of 10 GOP primary voters to vote for him in a field with at least 3 sheer lunatics?

Wow.
 
So, Mitt Romney, who has staked it all on New Hampshire and parked his ass up there for the last 3 years can't even convince 4 our of 10 GOP primary voters to vote for him in a field with at least 3 sheer lunatics?

Wow.

Guess there are some smart people in NH :wink: It is a unique place-live free or die.

The last three US Presidents finished second in the NH primary. Just saying.
 
So, Mitt Romney, who has staked it all on New Hampshire and parked his ass up there for the last 3 years can't even convince 4 our of 10 GOP primary voters to vote for him in a field with at least 3 sheer lunatics?

Wow.


If Romney is the nominee, he wins New Hampshire. That's all that matters.

And let's not forget that independents can vote in NH, and they accounted for about 40% of the vote, so it's hard to get a precise grip on who exactly the affiliated Republicans went for and in what numbers. :shrug: But we do know via the exit polls that Romney won huge on issues like the economy and electability.
 
And let's not forget that independents can vote in NH, and they accounted for about 40% of the vote, so it's hard to get a precise grip on who exactly the affiliated Republicans went for and in what numbers.

But isn't that a bad thing for him? I mean isn't this election supposed to be about individuals running away from Barack Obama? If that is the case, they certainly don't seem to be rushing into the arms of Romney.

I genuinely don't understand why Romney isn't winning these primaries by 20, 30 points.
 
Wow, that's quite a stretch to go from Kerry's statement to then accusing him of pandering to the crazies. Here's how I see it: Kerry went to war. Bush, on the other hand, chose (and was granted an unusually quick acceptance despite low scores) an option that would 1)allow him to avoid being drafted into the war and 2)fulfill his military duty in the States. Not that I blame him for seeking that option, mind you - but then I don't have any aspirations to be president.

Was Kerry's "I'm reporting for duty" a swipe at Bush? Sure, but I don't think he had to have believed the Rather report to make it.

im sure this was already discussed at length in here 8 years ago, but its worth mentioning

George W. Bush military service controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In November Bush began flight training at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia. In December 1969, he began further training on the F-102 in Houston at the 147th's Combat Crew Training School, soloing in March 1970 and graduating in June, fulfilling his active-duty commitment.[1] He performed Guard duty as an F-102 pilot through April 1972, logging a total of 336 flight hours[2] and was promoted once during his service, to First Lieutenant.[3]

In November 1970, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, commander of the 111th Fighter Squadron, recommended that Bush be promoted to First Lieutenant, calling him "a dynamic outstanding young officer" who stood out as "a top notch fighter interceptor pilot." He said that "Lt. Bush's skills far exceed his contemporaries," and that "he is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing."[4]

Air National Guard members could volunteer for active duty service with the Air Force in a program called Palace Alert, which deployed F-102 pilots to Europe and Southeast Asia, including Vietnam and Thailand. According to three pilots from Bush's squadron, Bush inquired about this program but was advised by the base commander that he did not have the necessary experience (500 hours) at the time and that the F-102 would soon be retired.[1][5]

Bush was advised against volunteering for service in SEA by the base commander because he lacked the required flight hours plus his aircraft was being retired. I dont blame him for not volunteering for SEA and taking the advice of his base commander. Also i respect Kerry's service, as i do John McCain's as well.

As for my previous comment about "Kerry pandering to crazies", obviously i dont believe that every Kerry supporter or Democrat was a crazy. There were a few though.

Let me just say this much, there are crazies on both sides. The left had Michael Moore's documentary, the Bush AWOL theories and then there were 911 truthers. Not even sure what you call the truthers, obviously not republicans but im sure the democrats dont really claim them either.

The GOP has its fringe as well, the "birthers" and the wingnuts who belive Obama is a marxist, socialist, or even a muslim, etc. The other side of the crazy coin. Can we all agree that both fringe elements are nuts?
 
I genuinely don't understand why Romney isn't winning these primaries by 20, 30 points.

Because the right wing base is half nuts. The base, mind you, not the moderates or fence sitters. Eventually they will come around to him when they realize he is the only one who could possibly beat Obama in the general election.
 
The GOP has its fringe as well, the "birthers" and the wingnuts who belive Obama is a marxist, socialist, or even a muslim, etc. The other side of the crazy coin. Can we all agree that both fringe elements are nuts?


can we also agree that the "right fringe" has much, much more power over the GOP than the "left fringe" has over the Democrats? and that we really can't equivocate between the two?
 
I'm baffled that you think these are equivalents. Michael Moore and AWOL theories I would say are more equivalent to Hannity or Rush. I just don't see an equivalent on the left that equals the birthers/ Obama is a Muslim socialist types, at least not one that mainstream candidates are catering to.
 
Sitting here having just watched Ron Paul speak, As a liberal, I really hope he runs as a Libertarian in the general election. I know it's not at all likely because of Rand Paul, but I still hope it happens. He could completely screw Romney(or whoever) just by being on the ballot in November.
 
One exit poll tidbit that caught my eye re:Santorum, only 8% of the Catholic voters went for him (more than a third of these voters were Catholic); he did three times as well with evangelicals, but still not quite as well as Romney.

Unsurprisingly Paul did the best with 18-to-29-year-olds (47%); they were only 12% of these voters though.
 
I like this

Carter would be 'pleased' with nominee Romney
By: Alexander Burns


From the department of unhelpful praise, former President Jimmy Carter tells Rachel Maddow he's a-ok with the idea of Mitt Romney as the GOP presidential nominee.

"I'm not taking a position, but I would be very pleased to see him win the Republican nomination," Carter told the MSNBC host, according to advance interview excerpts.

Carter's kind words for the GOP only go so far, and the Georgia Democrat also said he doesn't think "anybody's going to beat Obama."

But this isn't the first time Carter has given generous quotes about one of Obama's challengers. Back in May, he said in a CNN interview that Jon Huntsman was "very attractive to me personally" as a White House contender.
 
I'm sure Nominee-elect Mittens will clean up Washington from Obama's banker money...

oh, wait:




a17Ac.jpg
 
I wouldn't say "very low." It was about 230,000, down about 10,000 from 2008. There wasn't the same dynamic and excitement over who the winner was going to be, so that's probably expected.



Republican turnout was down 16%. seems enthusiasm for Paul lured independents to the polls.
 
US stereotypes of Italians don't include 'radical Commie subversives' so no one will care. If they had some juicy gossip about uncles in the Mafia or something (not that that's likely in Trentino) it might briefly attract notice.
 
The Dark Side of Mitt Romney | Politics | Vanity Fair

This sums up exactly what I think of him. Of course he's hardly the first politician that this applies to.

"Lacking an easy rapport with voters, he would come across as aloof, even off-putting. “A lot of it is he is patrician. He just is. He has lived a charmed life,” said one former aide. “It is a big challenge that he has, connecting to folks who haven’t swum in the same rarefied waters that he has.”



There's some interesting stuff in that article
 
Oh, yeah, I don't think the Santorum story's going to make massive waves or anything. I just found it random and interesting :). If he had Mafia ties of some kind, that would defintely be quite a story.

“A lot of it is he is patrician. He just is. He has lived a charmed life,” said one former aide. “It is a big challenge that he has, connecting to folks who haven’t swum in the same rarefied waters that he has.”

BINGO.

He has little patience for idle chatter or small talk, little interest in mingling at cocktail parties, at social functions, or even in the crowded hallway. He is not fed by, and does not crave, casual social interaction, often displaying little desire to know who people are and what makes them tick.

He's in the wrong career, then, clearly.

I've used the description before, but he's always come off appearing like a used car salesman to me. There's just something too slick and slightly unsettling about him that bothers me.

And the religion stuff is just plain weird. That whole story with the woman and the babies, what the heck?

“What I do feel bad about,” she wrote, “is that at a time when I would have appreciated nurturing and support from spiritual leaders and friends, I got judgment, criticism, prejudicial advice, and rejection.”

WWJD, indeed. This is why religion and politics should stay as separate as possible. And while it's nice to see he loves his wife, at the same time, some of his behavior and-devotion, I'll say, struck me a bit...strange.

And I'm still curious as to why Republicans who are so deadset against the federal goverment are running for a position in the government they claim to hate and they feel should stay out of everyone's lives (except when it comes to women's bodies and who can get married and wiretapping citizens and so on and so on). They have solutions to the problems, but if they hold a position within the federal government, they can't utilize those solutions, because to do that would mean the federal government would be interfering and...*Head spins, feels dizzy*.
 
I'm baffled that you think these are equivalents. Michael Moore and AWOL theories I would say are more equivalent to Hannity or Rush. I just don't see an equivalent on the left that equals the birthers/ Obama is a Muslim socialist types, at least not one that mainstream candidates are catering to.

Then i guess you will have to stay baffled then. :shrug:

I don't know how else to explain what im trying to say so we can just leave it at that. Sound okay?

:hug:
 
And I'm still curious as to why Republicans who are so deadset against the federal goverment are running for a position in the government they claim to hate and they feel should stay out of everyone's lives (except when it comes to women's bodies and who can get married and wiretapping citizens and so on and so on). They have solutions to the problems, but if they hold a position within the federal government, they can't utilize those solutions, because to do that would mean the federal government would be interfering and...*Head spins, feels dizzy*.


And the only people who should be presidents and senators and congresspeople are those who want to keep growing the federal government endlessly? How does change get enacted that way? How do we still have a country 50 years from now?

"I don't like the way this company is being run, so I should never aspire to lead it."
"I don't like the status of our education system, so I should never be a teacher."
"I think there's an inadequate amount of research in a certain area of science or medicine, so I won't grow up and be a doctor or scientist."

See how illogical that sounds? It's the same idea as you're putting forth. You can be cynical and give up, or you can put yourself out there and try to right the ship.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, to be honest. Republicans are "deadset against the federal government?" What does that mean? Implementing conservative ideas would mean massive interference in peoples' lives? I'm not following. :scratch:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom