Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Gingrich used paid contractors who collected signatures outside of retail stores.
Romney on the other hand used volunteers who collected signatures outside of polling places.
Romney followed the guidelines and submitted over 15,000 signatures. Gingrich ignored the guidelines and submitted 11,050 signatures.
Hmmm ... I wonder who has the best chance of having enough valid signatures of registered voters on their petitions? Damn those competent people who follow guidelines and actually have supporters in the state willing to help them get on the ballot. Dirty tricks, I tells ya!
Well, Romney is the guy who doesn't want to have a fair contest.
Which is fine, Obama won't give him one.
Again, don't see how you guys expect to win by alienating those of us who are supporting other candidates.
Practically asking for a third party.
I would think that the fact that there is a candidate who can't even bother to follow the rules to get on a ballot is pretty persuasive evidence that he doesn't deserve my vote.
Only people with their heads in the sand will try to convince themselves otherwise.
Um ... nooooo ... that would be the people who want Newt and Perry on the ballot even if they couldn't get enough valid signatures to satisfy Virginia laws.
I suppose you want Bachmann and Santorum and Huntsman on the ballot too even though they didn't submit signatures.
It would only be fair.
If the Republicans cared about the country they'd find a credible candidate. They have made no effort to do that.
Um ... nooooo ... that would be the people who want Newt and Perry on the ballot even if they couldn't get enough valid signatures to satisfy Virginia laws.
I suppose you want Bachmann and Santorum and Huntsman on the ballot too even though they didn't submit signatures.
It would only be fair.
Actually, that would be fair and reasonable to me. Why should the party hacks decide who is on the ballot.
Why not use the debate standard. If you are polling more than 2% in the polls, you are on the ballot. That actually sounds kind of reasonable.
At least more reasonable than letting an enelected board who have conflicts of interest decide who is going to get on.
But don't worry, Amelia, the Democrats are totally behind you on this one... probably looking for a place to stick a knife.
Why should Virginia be allowed to decide based on its own statutes who gets on its ballot???
Move to Virginia and start/join an initiative to change the law to what you consider reasonable.
You posting these things from Illinois reminds me of a lot of people who don't live here in Wisconsin saying things about my state which I know to be false based on my experience, but they're internet forum pundits so they must know more about what is happening in my state than they do.
Newsflash: your opinion of what is reasonable doesn't trump Virginia statute
Why should Virginia be allowed to decide based on its own statutes who gets on its ballot???
Move to Virginia and start/join an initiative to change the law to what you consider reasonable.
You posting these things from Illinois reminds me of a lot of people who don't live here in Wisconsin saying things about my state which I know to be false based on my experience, but they're internet forum pundits so they must know more about what is happening in my state than they do.
Newsflash: your opinion of what is reasonable doesn't trump Virginia statute
Newsflash... backroom deals will not put the weird Mormon Robot over the top, either.
The Establishment has said they don't trust their own voters. That's what this comes down to.
I would think that the fact that there is a candidate who can't even bother to follow the rules to get on a ballot is pretty persuasive evidence that he doesn't deserve my vote.
Only people with their heads in the sand will try to convince themselves otherwise.
Looks to me like he submitted enough signatures, and they were looking for excuses to disqualify him.
Come on, they disqualified Perry, Gingrich, Huntsman, Bachmann AND Santorum. All of these guys have been in more elections than Romney and all of them have won more elections than the whopping one election Romney won once.
It's simply a terrible idea to win this way because you can't win the honest way. It's how you end up with third party challenges that make you lose.
I would think that the fact that there is a candidate who can't even bother to follow the rules to get on a ballot is pretty persuasive evidence that he doesn't deserve my vote.
Only people with their heads in the sand will try to convince themselves otherwise.
Looks to me like he submitted enough signatures, and they were looking for excuses to disqualify him.
Come on, they disqualified Perry, Gingrich, Huntsman, Bachmann AND Santorum. All of these guys have been in more elections than Romney and all of them have won more elections than the whopping one election Romney won once.
It's simply a terrible idea to win this way because you can't win the honest way. It's how you end up with third party challenges that make you lose.
The way I see it if none of Mitts main contenders are on the ballot then how much does his victory mean??
Not much in my book.
The way I see it if none of Mitts main contenders are on the ballot then how much does his victory mean??
Not much in my book.
The way I see it if none of Mitts main contenders are on the ballot then how much does his victory mean??
Not much in my book.
Well, he has watched others for so many years turning victimy into political advantage, he could turn himself into the candidate who wins. I've been watching politics for many years, and I've come to one steady conclusion about them: anything goes.Newt believes rules are for other people. I'm surprised that anyone is surprised that Newt won't take responsibility for his own actions.So your solution is Newt, one of the few candidates less conservative than Romney.
I guess I have a different view of what it means to be conservative.
in 1994, Newt was the guy who got us control of congress, reformed Welfare, and pushed Clinton towards balancing the budget.
Reversable Mittens was denouncing Reagan, saying he'd be better on gay rights than Ted Kennedy, and protecting a woman's right to have an abortion. He would later go on to create the model for Socialized Medicine that Obama would copy.
Why should Virginia be allowed to decide based on its own statutes who gets on its ballot???
Move to Virginia and start/join an initiative to change the law to what you consider reasonable.
You posting these things from Illinois reminds me of a lot of people who don't live here in Wisconsin saying things about my state which I know to be false based on my experience, but they're internet forum pundits so they must know more about what is happening in my state than they do.
Newsflash: your opinion of what is reasonable doesn't trump Virginia statute
Newsflash... backroom deals will not put the weird Mormon Robot over the top, either.
The Establishment has said they don't trust their own voters. That's what this comes down to.
"Establishment" ???
The laws of Virginia have said they don't want to put their stamp of approval on someone without committed supporters or the competence to get on their ballot.
Joe, sometimes you make sense in spite of your anti-Mormon posts. Actually sometimes even your anti-Mormon posts make sense. I can understand someone being unwilling to vote for a person because he has weird beliefs. I would have trouble voting for a young-earther.
But this is just nutz that you would go so far that you would blame Romney for Gingrich's failure and even suggest nullifying the laws of a state to get an incompetent candidate on the ballot.
I thought I'd figured out your basic ideological framework, but you've taken me by surprise on this one.
Not liking Romney is one thing. But blaming him for Gingrich's failure?
The way I see it if none of Mitts main contenders are on the ballot then how much does his victory mean??
Not much in my book.
It means he gets all of Virginia's votes at the national convention.
It didn't work out too well for Palin other than monetarily. I don't see it working out any better for Newt. There are lots of Republicans that can't stand the man and would never vote for him.Well, he has watched others for so many years turning victimy into political advantage, he could turn himself into the candidate who wins. I've been watching politics for many years, and I've come to one steady conclusion about them: anything goes.Newt believes rules are for other people. I'm surprised that anyone is surprised that Newt won't take responsibility for his own actions.I guess I have a different view of what it means to be conservative.
in 1994, Newt was the guy who got us control of congress, reformed Welfare, and pushed Clinton towards balancing the budget.
Reversable Mittens was denouncing Reagan, saying he'd be better on gay rights than Ted Kennedy, and protecting a woman's right to have an abortion. He would later go on to create the model for Socialized Medicine that Obama would copy.
Newsflash... backroom deals will not put the weird Mormon Robot over the top, either.
The Establishment has said they don't trust their own voters. That's what this comes down to.
"Establishment" ???
The laws of Virginia have said they don't want to put their stamp of approval on someone without committed supporters or the competence to get on their ballot.
Joe, sometimes you make sense in spite of your anti-Mormon posts. Actually sometimes even your anti-Mormon posts make sense. I can understand someone being unwilling to vote for a person because he has weird beliefs. I would have trouble voting for a young-earther.
But this is just nutz that you would go so far that you would blame Romney for Gingrich's failure and even suggest nullifying the laws of a state to get an incompetent candidate on the ballot.
I thought I'd figured out your basic ideological framework, but you've taken me by surprise on this one.
Not liking Romney is one thing. But blaming him for Gingrich's failure?
I'm going to try to explain this to you, and if you aren't completely retarded you might get this.
The Establishment and Romney are joined at the hip. This is a fact of life.
The Establishment is more afraid of the TEA Party than it is of Obama getting a second term. This is also a fact.
The Rank and File has m ade it abudently clear that they don't want Romney as the nominee. I mean, Jesus, Herman Cain was the frontrunner for a couple of weeks, that's how "No way Romney" the base is.
So the establishment has a problem. If the voters vote in ANYONE except Romney, they have no authority anymore. They've drawn a line in the sand, and people are walking all over it.
So what to do? Invoke obscure rules to get everyone else off the ballot, that's what.
The establishment cares more about its own authority than the vastly more important goal of beating Obama. So they've sandbagged everyone else.
They've calculated that they can live with a second term of Obama more readily than a Gingrich or Perry Presidency, where they'll take a big hose to K-street and wash the lot of them out.
It's really kind of simple. It's why the Republican Party is rapidly going the way of the Whigs.
