Meanwhile, Romney wins the Washington Caucus

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2011
165,912
30,352
2,220
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
42% of the vote in, Romney has 37% of the vote to Crazy Ron Paul and Santorum with 24% each.

I will let you get back to complaining about what an overpaid loudmouth with a golden microphone said to get attention.
 
42% of the vote in, Romney has 37% of the vote to Crazy Ron Paul and Santorum with 24% each.

I will let you get back to complaining about what an overpaid loudmouth with a golden microphone said to get attention.


I am feeling good about this news.
06BBC114.gif
 
Another non-binding caucus that is essentially a straw vote. Next Tuesday will be the main show. If Romney sweeps them all, it is over. If Romney loses Ohio and the South, this race will last to the convention and these states that are having non-binding caucuses become a pivotal battleground. The candidates must revisit them again or risk losing delegates.
 
42% of the vote in, Romney has 37% of the vote to Crazy Ron Paul and Santorum with 24% each.

I will let you get back to complaining about what an overpaid loudmouth with a golden microphone said to get attention.


I am feeling good about this news.
06BBC114.gif

I'm not. Romney is a horrible candidate. I don't think there's any possiblitity he can win, and he might hurt us down-ticket.
 
Another non-binding caucus that is essentially a straw vote. Next Tuesday will be the main show. If Romney sweeps them all, it is over. If Romney loses Ohio and the South, this race will last to the convention and these states that are having non-binding caucuses become a pivotal battleground. The candidates must revisit them again or risk losing delegates.

Quite true. In fact, a lot of these contests are meaningless.

Florida and Arizona gave all their delegats to Romney, but broke the rules by having their primaries early and not awarding them proportionately.

There will be all sorts of credential fights if Romney doesn't wrap this up soon. It will be a mess. And if he does wrap it up, he'll lose, badly in November.
 
Another non-binding caucus that is essentially a straw vote. Next Tuesday will be the main show. If Romney sweeps them all, it is over. If Romney loses Ohio and the South, this race will last to the convention and these states that are having non-binding caucuses become a pivotal battleground. The candidates must revisit them again or risk losing delegates.

And if Newt loses GA, he will bow out, or so he has indicated...
06BBC114.gif


I personally like Newt, but think Romney is the one that can beat Obama. He has the $$$$$$, for starters and I think Independents will go for Romney.
 
Another non-binding caucus that is essentially a straw vote. Next Tuesday will be the main show. If Romney sweeps them all, it is over. If Romney loses Ohio and the South, this race will last to the convention and these states that are having non-binding caucuses become a pivotal battleground. The candidates must revisit them again or risk losing delegates.

And if Newt loses GA, he will bow out, or so he has indicated...
06BBC114.gif


I personally like Newt, but think Romney is the one that can beat Obama. He has the $$$$$$, for starters and I think Independents will go for Romney.

Well, I know that's what you've been told, but not really.

Romney is getting less votes in these primaries than he got in 2008 when he lost.

Look, if John McCain, war hero, bi-partisan bridge builder and all around decent guy couldn't win over the independents, Romney won't either. His negatives amongst independents are higher than McCain's ever were.

Romney's best selling point was the economy sucks andhe's a businessman. But if the economy continues to get better, that's not a selling point.
 
Another non-binding caucus that is essentially a straw vote. Next Tuesday will be the main show. If Romney sweeps them all, it is over. If Romney loses Ohio and the South, this race will last to the convention and these states that are having non-binding caucuses become a pivotal battleground. The candidates must revisit them again or risk losing delegates.

And if Newt loses GA, he will bow out, or so he has indicated...
06BBC114.gif


I personally like Newt, but think Romney is the one that can beat Obama. He has the $$$$$$, for starters and I think Independents will go for Romney.

Well, I know that's what you've been told, but not really.

Romney is getting less votes in these primaries than he got in 2008 when he lost.

Look, if John McCain, war hero, bi-partisan bridge builder and all around decent guy couldn't win over the independents, Romney won't either. His negatives amongst independents are higher than McCain's ever were.

Romney's best selling point was the economy sucks andhe's a businessman. But if the economy continues to get better, that's not a selling point.

You're assuming I believe everything I've been told???:lol: Sorry JoeB...I do my own research. Found it interesting that a majority of Catholic women voted for Romney over Santorum, who is a Catholic, in the last primary. Romney is on a roll. Better duck.
 
You're assuming I believe everything I've been told???:lol: Sorry JoeB...I do my own research. Found it interesting that a majority of Catholic women voted for Romney over Santorum, who is a Catholic, in the last primary. Romney is on a roll. Better duck.

i don't find that terribly impressive because

1) Michigan is Romney's "home State". He was born there. But he won't take it or his other "Home State" (Massachusetts) in November.

2) He outspent Santorum something like 10-1, if you factor in Super Pacs.

3) He had the entire GOP Republican Machine behind him.

4) He had the mainstream media sliming Santorum 24/7.

5) And Santorum stepped into it with this whole contraception mess, which is a loser issue.

But overall (not knowing what the "Catholic Women" vote was) Romney won his home state by a whopping 3 points.

Here's another factor. IN 2008, well over Half a million people participated in Washington's caucus. . Romney, although he came in third place behind Huckabee and McCain, still managed to garner a whopping 86,000 votes.

This time, total particpation was 51,000, of which Romney got 19,111 votes.

Now, you want to hear the truly scary part.

In 2008, Romney had already suspended his campaign at that point.

So the "Frontrunner" only got a fourth of the votes he got 4 years ago after he had given up. While participation in the caucus was only a TENTH of what it was 4 years ago when the nomination was nearly decided.

This is not a movement that unseats a president. This is a "let's get it over with" action.
 
John McCain.........war hero, bridge builder and all around decent guy? Proof that lies......if told often enough.....become reality for some.

The reality is that when you treat your election like American Idol, you get the sad results we have now.

McCain was everything you Democrats always said you wanted Republicans to be, and until he got the 2008, nomination, you fools and your mouthpieces in the media couldn't say enough good things about him.

Now, I have my own critiques of McCain. He wasn't really a conservative (but I'm not as conserverative as I was five years ago, either.) He often was petty and had a huge ego, but you know what, that's an occupational harzard for politicians.

But he served his country for five decades and Barry wasn't fit to shine his shoes.
 
Another non-binding caucus that is essentially a straw vote. Next Tuesday will be the main show. If Romney sweeps them all, it is over. If Romney loses Ohio and the South, this race will last to the convention and these states that are having non-binding caucuses become a pivotal battleground. The candidates must revisit them again or risk losing delegates.

There's nothing the candidates can do in the caucus states to affect the delegate outcome. Delegates are selected through a series of conventions that have nothing to do with whether or not a candidate comes back and campaigns there. The process was already started after the caucuses when the first slates of delegates were selected to move on to their county conventions. Candidates have no way of influencing that at this point.
 
John McCain.........war hero, bridge builder and all around decent guy? Proof that lies......if told often enough.....become reality for some.

The reality is that when you treat your election like American Idol, you get the sad results we have now.

McCain was everything you Democrats always said you wanted Republicans to be, and until he got the 2008, nomination, you fools and your mouthpieces in the media couldn't say enough good things about him.

Now, I have my own critiques of McCain. He wasn't really a conservative (but I'm not as conserverative as I was five years ago, either.) He often was petty and had a huge ego, but you know what, that's an occupational harzard for politicians.

But he served his country for five decades and Barry wasn't fit to shine his shoes.

First....you should refrain from calling all liberals "Democrats". Then, you should refrain from assuming that Democrats, as a whole, wanted McCain for even a fucking minute.

He's not "often petty". He is ALWAYS petty. He carries a fake smile that fails to mask his dark, nasty insides from discerning Americans....and he just is not that bright.
 
John McCain.........war hero, bridge builder and all around decent guy? Proof that lies......if told often enough.....become reality for some.

The reality is that when you treat your election like American Idol, you get the sad results we have now.

McCain was everything you Democrats always said you wanted Republicans to be, and until he got the 2008, nomination, you fools and your mouthpieces in the media couldn't say enough good things about him.

Now, I have my own critiques of McCain. He wasn't really a conservative (but I'm not as conserverative as I was five years ago, either.) He often was petty and had a huge ego, but you know what, that's an occupational harzard for politicians.

But he served his country for five decades and Barry wasn't fit to shine his shoes.

First....you should refrain from calling all liberals "Democrats". Then, you should refrain from assuming that Democrats, as a whole, wanted McCain for even a fucking minute.

He's not "often petty". He is ALWAYS petty. He carries a fake smile that fails to mask his dark, nasty insides from discerning Americans....and he just is not that bright.

Oh, please.

He's a politician. Decent people don't go into that line of work. Name one politician who even vaguely ressembles a decent human being, and I'll buy you lunch.

You guys had no problem with his "pettiness" when he was giving President Bush a hard time on Iraq or Judges. It's when he started giving Obama a hard time you had a problem with him.

Now, if you want to cast stones at Senator McCain (who is better than most of them) to justify voting for Obama, who has been, well, pretty much a fucking disaster, then have at it. Whatever gets you through the night, man.

Somehow, I think we'd have not suffered as much in the last three years if President McCain had been in charge. I don't think we would have had the divisiveness, for one thing. McCain wouldn't have told Democrats they "had to ride in the back of the bus". He would have worked with them, as he has in the past.

As far as not being bright. Carter was a nuclear physicist, and he was pretty much the worst president of my lifetime. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to leadership ability. Good leaders can motivate smarter people to get the job done.
 
The reality is that when you treat your election like American Idol, you get the sad results we have now.

McCain was everything you Democrats always said you wanted Republicans to be, and until he got the 2008, nomination, you fools and your mouthpieces in the media couldn't say enough good things about him.

Now, I have my own critiques of McCain. He wasn't really a conservative (but I'm not as conserverative as I was five years ago, either.) He often was petty and had a huge ego, but you know what, that's an occupational harzard for politicians.

But he served his country for five decades and Barry wasn't fit to shine his shoes.

First....you should refrain from calling all liberals "Democrats". Then, you should refrain from assuming that Democrats, as a whole, wanted McCain for even a fucking minute.

He's not "often petty". He is ALWAYS petty. He carries a fake smile that fails to mask his dark, nasty insides from discerning Americans....and he just is not that bright.

Oh, please.

He's a politician. Decent people don't go into that line of work. Name one politician who even vaguely ressembles a decent human being, and I'll buy you lunch.

You guys had no problem with his "pettiness" when he was giving President Bush a hard time on Iraq or Judges. It's when he started giving Obama a hard time you had a problem with him.

Now, if you want to cast stones at Senator McCain (who is better than most of them) to justify voting for Obama, who has been, well, pretty much a fucking disaster, then have at it. Whatever gets you through the night, man.

Somehow, I think we'd have not suffered as much in the last three years if President McCain had been in charge. I don't think we would have had the divisiveness, for one thing. McCain wouldn't have told Democrats they "had to ride in the back of the bus". He would have worked with them, as he has in the past.

As far as not being bright. Carter was a nuclear physicist, and he was pretty much the worst president of my lifetime. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to leadership ability. Good leaders can motivate smarter people to get the job done.

Dude....YOU are the one who called McCain a decent guy. Now you are offering to buy me lunch if I can name "one politician who even vaguely resembles a decent human being". Are you feeling OK?

Somehow? Somehow?

Listen here. In spite of the talking points that you recite, Obama has shown plenty of willingness to work with the GOP. More than many liberals think is necessary. Be factual, please.

Being bright......at least brighter than me...is absolutely a prerequisite if someone is going to get my vote. I really didn't like knowing that my President was a dumb ass for those 8 years.

And Carter was most certainly not the worst President of your lifetime. You might believe that in some twisted way....but it just ain't true.
 
Dude....YOU are the one who called McCain a decent guy. Now you are offering to buy me lunch if I can name "one politician who even vaguely resembles a decent human being". Are you feeling OK?

Politicians by nature aren't like normal people. John McCain was the leper with the most fingers. I'd put a guy who refused to take a propaganda release from a POW camp over a guy who threw his grandmother under the bus because he couldn't condemn his hateful racist minister.

Somehow? Somehow?

Listen here. In spite of the talking points that you recite, Obama has shown plenty of willingness to work with the GOP. More than many liberals think is necessary. Be factual, please.

Not really. But keep telling yourself that. Really, what he's done is created a lot of unnecessary confrontations and then had to back down on them. Which is why he's an awful leader.

Being bright......at least brighter than me...is absolutely a prerequisite if someone is going to get my vote. I really didn't like knowing that my President was a dumb ass for those 8 years.

When the "Dumb-Ass" was president, unemployment was rarely above 6%, and I made 20% more than I make now. I wish we had the "Dumb-Ass" back. Well, we'll get his brother in four years.

And Carter was most certainly not the worst President of your lifetime. You might believe that in some twisted way....but it just ain't true.

No, Jimmy Carter really was the worst president of my lifetime.

Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, double digit unemployment, Iran sticking it our face, the Soviets running amok because they didn't even vaguely fear us, Malaise. My dad having to put a lock on his gas cap because kids were siphoning gasoline out. I shudder to think what four more years of that idiot would have been like.
 
Another non-binding caucus that is essentially a straw vote. Next Tuesday will be the main show. If Romney sweeps them all, it is over. If Romney loses Ohio and the South, this race will last to the convention and these states that are having non-binding caucuses become a pivotal battleground. The candidates must revisit them again or risk losing delegates.

Quite true. In fact, a lot of these contests are meaningless.

Florida and Arizona gave all their delegats to Romney, but broke the rules by having their primaries early and not awarding them proportionately.

There will be all sorts of credential fights if Romney doesn't wrap this up soon. It will be a mess. And if he does wrap it up, he'll lose, badly in November.
Santorum has already begun APPEALING the Michigan results.
 
The reality is that when you treat your election like American Idol, you get the sad results we have now.

McCain was everything you Democrats always said you wanted Republicans to be, and until he got the 2008, nomination, you fools and your mouthpieces in the media couldn't say enough good things about him.

Now, I have my own critiques of McCain. He wasn't really a conservative (but I'm not as conserverative as I was five years ago, either.) He often was petty and had a huge ego, but you know what, that's an occupational harzard for politicians.

But he served his country for five decades and Barry wasn't fit to shine his shoes.

First....you should refrain from calling all liberals "Democrats". Then, you should refrain from assuming that Democrats, as a whole, wanted McCain for even a fucking minute.

He's not "often petty". He is ALWAYS petty. He carries a fake smile that fails to mask his dark, nasty insides from discerning Americans....and he just is not that bright.

Oh, please.

He's a politician. Decent people don't go into that line of work. Name one politician who even vaguely ressembles a decent human being, and I'll buy you lunch.

You guys had no problem with his "pettiness" when he was giving President Bush a hard time on Iraq or Judges. It's when he started giving Obama a hard time you had a problem with him.

Now, if you want to cast stones at Senator McCain (who is better than most of them) to justify voting for Obama, who has been, well, pretty much a fucking disaster, then have at it. Whatever gets you through the night, man.

Somehow, I think we'd have not suffered as much in the last three years if President McCain had been in charge. I don't think we would have had the divisiveness, for one thing. McCain wouldn't have told Democrats they "had to ride in the back of the bus". He would have worked with them, as he has in the past.

As far as not being bright. Carter was a nuclear physicist, and he was pretty much the worst president of my lifetime. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to leadership ability. Good leaders can motivate smarter people to get the job done.
Decent guy: FORD, DOLE.........you would not accept Democrats I gather. WORST of my life time: GWB. Carter, mediocre.
 

Forum List

Back
Top