Republican candidates for 2012
-
I Wear PantsThey didn't count one of the counties in Maine yet I believe because of snow or something and I think it was one of the ones Paul was doing well in.
-
jhay78
Santorum leading Romney in Michigan. If Romney can't win Michigan, where his dad was guv, look out.
http://www.therightscoop.com/2012-santorum-leads-in-michigan/ -
sjmvsfscs08
Bill Maher had a great point one time when he said, to paraphrase, "I used to think independent voters were the ones who actually paid attention and swung to decide the election in favor of the better candidate, now Ive realized that independent voters are actually the most clueless ones who swing aimlessly to the shinier candidate because they're the dumbest."Ty Webb;1084746 wrote:http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/02/13/independents_abandoning_romney.html
Independents Abandoning Romney
Greg Sargent flags a striking finding in the new Pew Research poll:
In November, Mitt Romney was beating President Obama among independent voters, 53% to 41%. Now those numbers are upside down: Obama tops Romney among them, 51% to 42%. That's a net 19 point swing of independents in Obama's direction in three months
The good jobs numbers, and the media firing up the attacks on Romney and the GOP will certainly have a one-sided impact until the general election and the GOP unites to get back at Obama. The GOP is stepping on its own dick by dragging this primary out; once again the Bible-thumpers are holding the party hostage. -
majorspark
Hide yo dicks, hide yo snatch, Ricks a comin.jhay78;1084881 wrote:Santorum leading Romney in Michigan. If Romney can't win Michigan, where his dad was guv, look out.
http://www.therightscoop.com/2012-santorum-leads-in-michigan/ -
sjmvsfscs08
48% said they are sure of who they will vote for.jhay78;1084881 wrote:Santorum leading Romney in Michigan. If Romney can't win Michigan, where his dad was guv, look out.
http://www.therightscoop.com/2012-santorum-leads-in-michigan/
Santorum needs to die in a fire. -
QuakerOatsAnybody But Obama 2012
-
IggyPride00
Poor Willard.
The more people learn about him, the less they like him.
He is screwed in a general election because he isn't going to have a 5/6 to 1 money advantage to carpet bomb Obama with an overwhelming barrage of negative ads into submission the way he has been able to his foes in the primary.
He has no ideas, and is unable to sell the public on why he should be president. Hence his campaign tactics this year.
It is why his campaign is panicking right now, because they want to press the button on another barrage of negative ads, but his advisers have warned him it is driving his negatives straight up...as well as developing himself a reputation as a negative campaigner.
The general public would rather have a politician who is principled and wrong, than a finger in the wind candidate whose positions change because the polling tells him to (hence why Bush was re-elected instead of flip flopping Kerry).
Willard thankfully has finally been exposed, but sadly it is probably too late as he has too much of a money advantage for Santorum or Newt to really make enough of a dent Super Tuesday to derail his campaign. -
Cleveland Buck
That might make sense, except, in shocking fashion, they didn't poll the Republican candidate that dominates Obama with independent voters. And he certainly doesn't have a media shine on him. In fact they smear shit all over him to cover up any shine.sjmvsfscs08;1084899 wrote:Bill Maher had a great point one time when he said, to paraphrase, "I used to think independent voters were the ones who actually paid attention and swung to decide the election in favor of the better candidate, now Ive realized that independent voters are actually the most clueless ones who swing aimlessly to the shinier candidate because they're the dumbest."
The good jobs numbers, and the media firing up the attacks on Romney and the GOP will certainly have a one-sided impact until the general election and the GOP unites to get back at Obama. The GOP is stepping on its own dick by dragging this primary out; once again the Bible-thumpers are holding the party hostage. -
sjmvsfscs08
lololIggyPride00;1084934 wrote:
Poor Willard.
The more people learn about him, the less they like him.
He is screwed in a general election because he isn't going to have a 5/6 to 1 money advantage to carpet bomb Obama with an overwhelming barrage of negative ads into submission the way he has been able to his foes in the primary.
He has no ideas, and is unable to sell the public on why he should be president. Hence his campaign tactics this year.
It is why his campaign is panicking right now, because they want to press the button on another barrage of negative ads, but his advisers have warned him it is driving his negatives straight up...as well as developing himself a reputation as a negative campaigner.
The general public would rather have a politician who is principled and wrong, than a finger in the wind candidate whose positions change because the polling tells him to (hence why Bush was re-elected instead of flip flopping Kerry).
Willard thankfully has finally been exposed, but sadly it is probably too late as he has too much of a money advantage for Santorum or Newt to really make enough of a dent Super Tuesday to derail his campaign.
I honestly think you hate Romney more than Obama.
And the fact that you prefer Santorum over, well, anyone is baffling. You'd have to be a fool to vote for that guy. -
sjmvsfscs08
I assume you're talking about Ron Paul?Cleveland Buck;1085015 wrote:That might make sense, except, in shocking fashion, they didn't poll the Republican candidate that dominates Obama with independent voters. And he certainly doesn't have a media shine on him. In fact they smear shit all over him to cover up any shine. -
Cleveland Buck
I could be wrong, but I doubt he prefers Santorum. I know I won't ever vote for Romney, but it is even less likely I would vote for Santorum.sjmvsfscs08;1085017 wrote:lolol
I honestly think you hate Romney more than Obama.
And the fact that you prefer Santorum over, well, anyone is baffling. You'd have to be a fool to vote for that guy. -
Cleveland Buck
He's the only one they didn't poll. And the only one that beats Obama vs. independents.sjmvsfscs08;1085018 wrote:I assume you're talking about Ron Paul? -
IggyPride00
Correct, I actually prefer Newt, but he is done.I could be wrong, but I doubt he prefers Santorum.
I have less respect for Willard than I do the President.
I don't like Obama or agree with his politics, but at least he is up front about his radical views. Willard on the other hand is a statist through and through who is literally the most desparate presidential candidate I have ever seen. He wants to be President so bad it is embarrassing. He probably has some kind of deep seated daddy issue that he wants to accomplish something his father couldn't, which is why he has been perpetually campaigning for 6 years now.
This is comical. Without the bible thumpers it is impossible for a Republican to win the Presidency.once again the Bible-thumpers are holding the party hostage.
Most of the bible thumpers are Conservatives, which is why the Willard campaign loathes them so much. They see through his bullshit, which is why they refuse to buy in.
They don't want a moderate, as they correctly understand that moderates lose elections. Ask Dole and McCain (Willard's fellow moderates) how well that worked out for them when the base gets depressed. -
sjmvsfscs08
Care to be more specific?IggyPride00;1085025 wrote:Correct, I actually prefer Newt, but he is done.
I have less respect for Willard than I do the President.
I don't like Obama or agree with his politics, but at least he is up front about his radical views. Willard on the other hand is a statist through and through who is literally the most desparate presidential candidate I have ever seen. He wants to be President so bad it is embarrassing. He probably has some kind of deep seated daddy issue that he wants to accomplish something his father couldn't, which is why he has been perpetually campaigning for 6 years now.
This is comical. Without the bible thumpers it is impossible for a Republican to win the Presidency.
Most of the bible thumpers are Conservatives, which is why the Willard campaign loathes them so much. They see through his bullshit, which is why they refuse to buy in.
They don't want a moderate, as they correctly understand that moderates lose elections. Ask Dole and McCain (Willard's fellow moderates) how well that worked out for them when the base gets depressed.
You see a statist, I see a populist.
You see a flip-flopper, I see a guy who isn't going to impose his ideological beliefs on people who don't agree with him. He was a fucking Mormon governing Massachusetts.
You see moderates losing elections, but Clinton won running as a moderate and there was no way a Republican was going to win in 2008.
And you don't think NEWT FUCKING GINGRICH isn't a "statist?" What the fuck?! Newt Gingrich is a veteran Washington insider, that is the opposite of the solution. Honestly what the hell has Gingrich ever done other than ride the dot-com boom into a budget surplus, and being the anti-Clinton to, IRONICALLY, turn Clinton into a moderate.
On that note, what has Santorum ever done other than vote yes on everything George Bush wanted? He sat there idly by while the deficit and the housing boom grew and grew. He's simply riding the gay-bashing vote at this point because the Bible-thumpers are petrified of Romney.
Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney could all be defined as a statist. If you're not Ron Paul, then you're a statist. -
bases_loaded
Were going to war with Iran and soon.
How does that change things? -
Cleveland Buck
Stock up on guns, ammo, food, water, and precious metals? It's not going to change who I vote for. I wasn't going to vote for Obama anyway. Or Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum. None of them are any different anyway, especially when it comes to warmongering and imperialism.bases_loaded;1085121 wrote:Were going to war with Iran and soon.
How does that change things? -
majorspark
This happens all the time in presidential primaries. Rush was playing this up last election with "operation chaos" thinking somehow dragging out a primary is going to hurt the eventual nominee. Didn't hurt Obama. Even the most brutal primary rarely hurts the eventual nominee. You are a young guy you will get used seeing it play out over and over again.sjmvsfscs08;1084899 wrote:The GOP is stepping on its own dick by dragging this primary out; once again the Bible-thumpers are holding the party hostage.
This "Bible-thumper" thing is a distraction. You fall right into it. You are not going to win conservatives over with that BS. You wan't conservatives to think twice about the Ricker.sjmvsfscs08;1084899 wrote:On that note, what has Santorum ever done other than vote yes on everything George Bush wanted? He sat there idly by while the deficit and the housing boom grew and grew. He's simply riding the gay-bashing vote at this point because the Bible-thumpers are petrified of Romney.
[video=youtube;XR7e2A2VvaQ][/video]
The problem with Willard is few conservative believe he would not have voted the same way. Truth is Willard can't bring this up. It would mean he would be taking a stand against it. He can't he supports it. He will try to obfuscate but will never be able to make the clear cut needed to win over conservatives. -
IggyPride00
Launch the Air Raid sirens, Team Willard is commencing the carpet bombing all across Michigan effective immediately.Pro-Romney Group Buys Almost $500,000 in TV Ads in Michigan
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/pro-romney-group-buys-almost-500000-in-tv-ads-in-michigan/ -
majorspark
Willard would have done the same.sjmvsfscs08;1085092 wrote:On that note, what has Santorum ever done other than vote yes on everything George Bush wanted? .
[video=youtube;isVNXc7cHBc][/video]
I agree on some of the foreign policy points but Willard largely supporting the idea behind many of Bush's domestic policies that conservatives took issue with is the problem they have with him. -
I Wear Pants
FTFYIggyPride00;1085025 wrote:Correct, I actually prefer Newt, but he is done.
I have less respect for Willard than I do the President.
I don't like Obama or agree with his politics, but at least he is up front about his radical views. Willard on the other hand is a statist through and through who is literally the most desparate presidential candidate I have ever seen. He wants to be President so bad it is embarrassing. He probably has some kind of deep seated daddy issue that he wants to accomplish something his father couldn't, which is why he has been perpetually campaigning for 6 years now.
This is comical. Without the bible thumpers it is impossible for a Republican to win the Presidency.
Most of the bible thumpers think they are Conservatives, which is why the Willard campaign loathes them so much. They see through his bullshit, which is why they refuse to buy in.
They don't want a moderate, as they correctly understand that moderates lose elections. Ask Dole and McCain (Willard's fellow moderates) how well that worked out for them when the base gets depressed.
The bible thumpers tend to want government intervention in religious, sexual, and "moral" issues like marriage rather than being truly conservative. -
I Wear PantsI just threw up a bit in my mouth after watching that Santorum ad, it got even worse at the end when it said "paid for by the US Chamber of Commerce" which is a terrible organization.
-
majorspark
Your confusing conservative with libertarian. There are "big government" conservatives out there. Then there are "small government" or "constitutional" conservative that believe these issues are to be dealt with at the state and local level.I Wear Pants;1085335 wrote:The bible thumpers tend to want government intervention in religious, sexual, and "moral" issues like marriage rather than being truly conservative. -
majorspark
With recent polls Team Willard is operating under defcon 2. They can't afford to lose Michigan. His home state where his father served as governor.IggyPride00;1085310 wrote:Launch the Air Raid sirens, Team Willard is commencing the carpet bombing all across Michigan effective immediately.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/pro-romney-group-buys-almost-500000-in-tv-ads-in-michigan/ -
I Wear Pants
I guess we have to be clear on what we mean by conservative. And truly I feel that we should stop calling one of either fiscal conservatives or social conservatives conservatives because the principles behind the two are almost directly opposed. Fiscal conservatives are for less government intrusion in our personal lives via tax policy, spending, etc. Social conservatives argue for more government to protect us from shit they don't like.majorspark;1085339 wrote:Your confusing conservative with libertarian. There are "big government" conservatives out there. Then there are "small government" or "constitutional" conservative that believe these issues are to be dealt with at the state and local level. -
majorspark
They all cross lines. What I am getting at is "big government" central control vs "small government" state, local, and individual control. I want the government to protect me from shit I don't like. For instance: I don't want prostitutes trolling the streets in front of my house or near my kids school. This can easily be handled at the local level and state level. I have no desire to run out and cry to my federal representative to make it stop. Nor would I cry for him to shut down the bunny ranch in the desert a couple of thousand miles away.I Wear Pants;1085378 wrote:I guess we have to be clear on what we mean by conservative. And truly I feel that we should stop calling one of either fiscal conservatives or social conservatives conservatives because the principles behind the two are almost directly opposed. Fiscal conservatives are for less government intrusion in our personal lives via tax policy, spending, etc. Social conservatives argue for more government to protect us from shit they don't like.