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

[U2DMfan]

Missouri showed us what happens to Mitt, even in a more purple/moderate State, without the hard conservative vote diluted (Gingrich not on the ballot). Romney gets trounced by 30pts...by Rick fucking Santorum...a guy that probably gets zero moderate vote.

Can you say voter apathy? And you thought 2008 was bad for Republicans...they simply don't want Mitt. I don't know that I've ever seen it like this. It's too bad Mitt sold his moderate soul McCain-style and won't be able to attract much of the middle in November.

It's already pretty much anti-climactic to me.
Looking less and less like 2004 and more and more like 1996 (just in terms of already seeing the result this far out). And I say this as someone who is and remains (in a theoretical sense) willing to vote against Obama. It's just...there is no alternative here.

Maybe Huntsman will run 3rd party...nah, probably not.

 

[yolland]

This bodes well for Santorum in the Midwest, I suppose?

At least with him you can see the appeal to voters seeking a "true conservative," social conservatives anyway. He seems so dislikeable as a personality, though, that I'm surprised to see him getting this much traction. Then again, this has been such an insane roller coaster of a primary season that maybe nothing should surprise anymore.

 

[BVS]

It really has been a roller coaster. I think this shows that the GOP is completely out of step with society in general.

And the Democratic party is well on their way too.

I think that more and more people are finding themselves not being able to relate to either party.

I predict that we see some kind of real big shift after Obama's 2nd term. One that doesn't look like either one of the current parties of today.

 

[2861U2]

also, rough night for Mittens.

To a degree, but it was an even worse night for Newt. Keep in mind Romney didn't try hard in any of these 3 states- whereas Santorum had been campaigning in those states since before Florida- and no delegates were awarded. As long as Romney wins both Arizona and Michigan in a few weeks, he's fine.

 

[Irvine511]

To a degree, but it was an even worse night for Newt. Keep in mind Romney didn't try hard in any of these 3 states- whereas Santorum had been campaigning in those states since before Florida- and no delegates were awarded. As long as Romney wins both Arizona and Michigan in a few weeks, he's fine.

i don't think that anyone doubts that Romney is eventually going to be the nominee, but doesn't he have a big problem here? isn't there blood in the water? not so much in his path to victory but in the low turnout and huge resistance to him among the base which does not bode well for the general -- the only way Bush eeked out a win in '04 was because he turned out the evangelicals, especially in SE Ohio.

in a way, this speaks highly of Romney. i find the GOP base repugnant. i myself wouldn't be that uncomfortable with a Romney presidency.

 

[Popmartijn]

Keep in mind Romney didn't try hard in any of these 3 states- whereas Santorum had been campaigning in those states since before Florida- and no delegates were awarded.

It was my understanding that for Colorado (36) and Minnesota (40) delegates were awarded. Missouri was indeed just a beauty contest, with a caucus on March 17th, but the other two had more delegates at stake than Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina together.
I understand that the Romney camp was downplaying the importance of yesterday's results, but others might disagree with that.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think the backlash against the birth control issue was a factor. The other candidates even used it against Romney and said that he did the same thing in MA. There were probably ads about it.

Even some Democrats have been critical of it, and I think you'll see the administration back off of it in fear of the political consequences.

 

[PhilsFan]

It was my understanding that for Colorado (36) and Minnesota (40) delegates were awarded. Missouri was indeed just a beauty contest, with a caucus on March 17th, but the other two had more delegates at stake than Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina together.
I understand that the Romney camp was downplaying the importance of yesterday's results, but others might disagree with that.

No, there were no delegates last night. Colorado and Minnesota were things known as non-binding caucuses. They don't actually award their delegates until April.

 

[anitram]

To a degree, but it was an even worse night for Newt.

First of all, who cares about Newt? He's been cooked for a while (it's inexplicable how he was even in it).

Second, it wasn't a bad night "to a degree" - it was pretty awful and embarrassing. What's the spending advantage that Romney has? 30 million? And it is very obvious, as Irvine already stated that the base HATES Mitt. Can't stand him.

Worse yet,

According to a new PPP poll, over the last 6 months % of Democrats 'very excited' to vote this fall has risen from 48% to 58%.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Rick Perry has (unfortunately) resurfaced. Oooh, reloaded his mags. Look out world.



During an interview with Fox News earlier Monday, Perry acknowledged, "looking back now, we would have gotten into this race substantially sooner."

"I haven't left the fight," he told the network, "I just went home and rearmed and reloaded my mags, and I'm going to be fighting on a different front."

 

[BVS]

During an interview with Fox News earlier Monday, Perry acknowledged, "looking back now, we would have gotten into this race substantially sooner."

Riiiiight, that was the problem...

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think that's the first thing Trump has said that I agree with. I just can't even imagine Santorum as (God forbid) POTUS. It's literally a scary thought. Scarier to me than Gingrich, if I had Rick Perry's reloaded mags to my head and had to choose. Santorum and Gingrich, now that would be a tough do, marry, or kill.



Donald Trump sits down with CNN anchor Ashleigh Banfield to discuss GOP candidates for president as well as what position he would want in Mitt Romney’s cabinet.

Trump says, “Rick Santorum was a sitting senator who in re-election lost by 19 points, to my knowledge the most in the history of this country for a sitting senator to lose by 19 points. It’s unheard of. Then he goes out and says oh ‘okay’ I just lost by the biggest margin in history and now I’m going to run for president. Tell me, how does that work? ... That’s like me saying I just failed a test. Now I’m going to apply for admission to the Wharton School of Finance. Okay? He just failed a test.... And now he’s going to run for president. So, I don’t get Rick Santorum. I don’t get that whole thing.”

 

[2861U2]

First of all, who cares about Newt? He's been cooked for a while (it's inexplicable how he was even in it).

Second, it wasn't a bad night "to a degree" - it was pretty awful and embarrassing. What's the spending advantage that Romney has? 30 million? And it is very obvious, as Irvine already stated that the base HATES Mitt. Can't stand him.

How can you say Newt is irrelevant? As long as he keeps raising money, attacking Romney and vowing to go to the convention, he's relevant.

Again, they were all non-binding caucuses, the delegate count is unchanged, and Romney hardly spent any money in those states. Go back and look at some of the exit polls of the states that have voted so far. Romney wins self-described conservatives and Tea Partiers in some of those states.

If you're thinking Romney is going to sweep every remaining state, you're wrong. As a supporter of his, I'd personally rather have his main opponent be Santorum than Gingrich.

 

[financeguy]

so it's still falling, then?

thanks.

Yeah, like the US's credit rating under Obama:

S&P Threatens US With Another Downgrade In As Little As 6 Months | ZeroHedge

 

[Irvine511]

Yeah, like the US's credit rating under Obama:

S&P Threatens US With Another Downgrade In As Little As 6 Months | ZeroHedge

switching the subject now?

 

[Irvine511]

How can you say Newt is irrelevant? As long as he keeps raising money, attacking Romney and vowing to go to the convention, he's relevant.

Again, they were all non-binding caucuses, the delegate count is unchanged, and Romney hardly spent any money in those states. Go back and look at some of the exit polls of the states that have voted so far. Romney wins self-described conservatives and Tea Partiers in some of those states.

If you're thinking Romney is going to sweep every remaining state, you're wrong. As a supporter of his, I'd personally rather have his main opponent be Santorum than Gingrich.

are you at all concerned that Romney lost in states he won in 2008, and these are states he'll have to win to have a chance at getting to 270?

 

[financeguy]

switching the subject now?

Well, we seem to have established that you're proud of your hero's record in reducing the unemployment rate to 1938 levels, so I didn't see much quarter in continuing with that avenue.

 

[Irvine511]

Well, we seem to have established that you're proud of your hero's record in reducing the unemployment rate to 1938 levels, so I didn't see much quarter in continuing with that avenue.

all i've done is demonstrate that Obama inherited an economy that was losing 750,000 jobs a month and is now creating 200,000+ a month.

you sound like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and any other right wing bookseller.

no one is claiming Obama has performed an economic miracle, but constantly looking for bad news when there clear sings of a slow but real recovery (no double-dip recession) seems like being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

 

[mikal]

all i've done is demonstrate that Obama inherited an economy that was losing 750,000 jobs a month and is now creating 200,000+ a month.

you sound like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and any other right wing bookseller.

no one is claiming Obama has performed an economic miracle, but constantly looking for bad news when there clear sings of a slow but real recovery (no double-dip recession) seems like being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

 

[BVS]

all i've done is demonstrate that Obama inherited an economy that was losing 750,000 jobs a month and is now creating 200,000+ a month.

you sound like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and any other right wing bookseller.

no one is claiming Obama has performed an economic miracle, but constantly looking for bad news when there clear sings of a slow but real recovery (no double-dip recession) seems like being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

Exactly

 

[Irvine511]

of course, it wouldn't be FYM if we weren't contrary for the sake of being contrary, sorry if i came across a bit too curt.

 

[financeguy]

Exactly

You can't just keep riding on the coat-tails of Irvine and shouting from the sidelines. You should try to develop your own arguments now and again and write posts of your own, then you can be allowed play with the big boys and girls.

 

[financeguy]

of course, it wouldn't be FYM if we weren't contrary for the sake of being contrary, sorry if i came across a bit too curt.

No worries, I am after all the Bad News Bear of the forum.

 

[BVS]

You can't just keep riding on the coat-tails of Irvine and shouting from the sidelines. You should try to develop your own arguments now and again and write posts of your own, then you can be allowed play with the big boys and girls.

I've engaged with you plenty of times over the years. I started a response, then read irvine's and decided it was much more precise, and didn't want to clog this thread with reiterations of the same post.

But in general I believe you have lost your sense of nuance lately and have started to just take the Rush/ Hannity script and write it as your own. I find it disappointing, for you use to be able to rise above that garbage.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

all i've done is demonstrate that Obama inherited an economy that was losing 750,000 jobs a month and is now creating 200,000+ a month.

you sound like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and any other right wing bookseller.

no one is claiming Obama has performed an economic miracle, but constantly looking for bad news when there clear sings of a slow but real recovery (no double-dip recession) seems like being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

I don't particularly like bad news, and i dont think Financeguy does either. But even as an optimist, i dont think its wise to pass on bad news disguised as good news.

I realize this has already been covered a few pages back, so im surprised to see it come up again.

Here's the dirty little secret:

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low

Largest absolute jump in people dropping out of labor force:

Record 1.2M Fall Out Of Labor Force

Participation rate falls to 63.7%, a 30-year low.

Sorry, but it's a FACT - we're not actually seeing an employment recovery, we're seeing desperation turn to hopelessness and giving up all together for millions of Americans.

Financeguy is just calling it like he sees it.

 

[Jive Turkey]

of course, it wouldn't be FYM if we weren't contrary for the sake of being contrary, sorry if i came across a bit too curt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c

 

[PhilsFan]

I think we need to have it explained how the Census works.

 

[yolland]

Record 1.2M Fall Out Of Labor Force

Participation rate falls to 63.7%, a 30-year low.

Sorry, but it's a FACT - we're not actually seeing an employment recovery, we're seeing desperation turn to hopelessness and giving up all together for millions of Americans.

Again--this was the month they made the once-a-decade census adjustment. That was an adjustment of 1,510,000 people who had never been counted before (with no backwards adjustment). 1,288,000 were added to the 55+ age group (56% as "not in labor force"), 430,000 were added to the 16-24 age group (76% as "not in labor force"), and for the 25-54s there was a negative adjustment, -299,000. In total, that's 1,250,000 added to "not in labor force" and 258,000 added to the labor force (216,000 employed, 42,000 unemployed). Which explains the drop in the labor force participation rate. None of these people "fell out" of anything, unless you want to make the case that the US population somehow managed to literally grow by 1,510,000 in one month.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

more data from various sources:

http://www.shrm.org/Publications/HRNews/Documents/2012TB_WorkforceTrends_lowrez.pdf


will try this link again, it didnt work in my previous post

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/03/2012 08:51 -0500

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics Unemployment Withholding taxes


A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that's not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation. As for the quality of jobs, as withholding taxes roll over Year over year, it can only mean that the US is replacing high paying FIRE jobs with low paying construction and manufacturing. So much for the improvement.

Chart below shows it all - that jump is not a fat finger!

(ive already posted the charts in the previous post)

 

[Irvine511]

more data from various sources:

http://www.shrm.org/Publications/HRNews/Documents/2012TB_WorkforceTrends_lowrez.pdf


will try this link again, it didnt work in my previous post

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge


(ive already posted the charts in the previous post)

this has already been answered. read Yolland's post above or refer to my post on this a few pages back.