The March 6th GOP Primaries: A Critical Loss for Mitt Romney

Polls show that Obama is beating Romney by anywhere from 2-10 points. Not one poll shows him beating Obama.

That scientific enough for ya, bud?

and here's the thing. They haven't even gotten started on Romney yet. Most Americans aren't paying attention right now.

Try reading your own post, you stupid leftist whore. You won't get it, but try anyway.

I get it perfectly... But I understand you have limited reading comprehension skills.

Opinions on Obama are pretty much set in stone. We've had him on the stage for four years now.

The people who don't start paying attention until August really aren't watching this circus on the GOP. And they will be as underwealmed with Romney as the GOP rank and files seems to be. Even less so.

But you keep getting behind your creepy Mormon Robot. He'll lose bigger than McCain.
Oh, I don't know, JoeB131. A lot of what Mitt Romney is accused of doing is smoke and mirrors put out by his adversaries on the left. He has put an outreach to conservatives from many walks, plus he has a track record of give-and-take in the better interests of the all the people he serves, not just party faithful.

Right now, we have a President who, for reasons not known to me, blames everyone else for everything, won't do a budget that fits in with what America can afford (which is not much after interest on the national debt), and a Pelosi congress that has enriched Pelosi relatives' failed businesses at the expense of every taxpayer to the tune of over one and a half billion dollars spread out over 3 million Americans, and is instead of stimulating the economy of America is giving losers more chips to lose.

Thanks to John Boehner, that practice ended two months ago, and he's making it hard for the Democrats to realize their every whim and fantasy of enrichment at taxpayer expense. The left is so angry at Boehner for stopping their madcap spending and personal fortune-accumulating, they send out attackers online to toast those who oppose their profitless ventures for which their golden parachutes cover every square inch of Nancy's botox smile.

The treasury is not a piggy bank that the party in power can exploit, and taxpayers are getting to know the width and depth of this drawing against their tax payments, being forced instantaneously when Obama's minions pick up their phone and tell the treasury to hurry up with the cash for such-and-such a Democrat failed business that "needs" tax money and "needs" it now.

I think Mitt has the equipment to stop this party pilferage that is going on, and his adversaries fear him, because when you lay down the mirrors and put out the coals making so much smoke, Mitt Romney has a history of getting enough cooperation from his political adversaries to put his state's books in the black again.

Of course, statistics can be warped to show anything you want, and lying about reality makes people's votes go the wrong way.

This threatens the American Constitution, and those doing the shell game with America's taxes going to political crime families like Nancy Pelosi's will either get stopped, or we're all going down. Hopefully, someone who's concealed this travesty in the past will realize this, and lay the cards on the table where everyone can see them, so America can put the brakes on runaway spending on Castles in Spain for the already-wealthy, for more, more, and much more of that nice huge dogpile of American tax money.

To Democrats, all that money is a free-for-all, do not read bills, just pass them shell game of vice and criminal political intent aforethought with the safety and security of America far, far to the back burner of agendas.

Mitt may do okay.
 
Well for a "loser" Romney did pretty good on Super Tuesday.

Yes he did. He will be the GOP nominee.


imagesCAS7X50B.jpg
 
The tone of the coming campaign has been set. The 1% against the rest of us. Denigration of women and belittling of their legitimate concerns. Purposeful roadblocks to improving the economy versus working for an improving economy.

The GOP has put itself into a position of fighting the aspirations of the majority of Americans on every issue. As the goes national, Romney will either have to flip-flop on his recent flip-flops, or stand where Santrorum is today. In short, the GOP has driven itself into a dead end alley, with no reverse, and no room to turn around.
 
Romney won 6 out of 10 States. Yes, he's in real trouble. :rolleyes:
-

You seem to misunderstand the point. Romney is definitely going to win the nomination. I have no doubt about that. It's the cost of continuing to battle those in his own party and having to address issues that really aren't relevent to most voters, that I think will hurt him in the General Election.

The longer the primary goes, the more confident I am Obama is going down. You see, while Obama is playing golf, the Republicans are getting out there with the people. They are stirring up energy. I am very excited for this Novembers election.

That I don't agree with. The harder Romney has to fight in the primaries in the battleground states, the worse the damage he does to himself gets. He needs to start mending fences soon, but the problem is if anyone drops out, Mitt will have to pour in more money to fight off those that remain. Meaning a more vicious mudslinging contest and reduced funds for the General.

Mitt definitely won in the battle for the GOP Nomination last night. The Conservative vote remains fractured and is likely to stay that way. He won Ohio and denied Santorum any momentum coming out of Super Tuesday. But it's starting to look like this will keep going and going and going. And that isn't good.
 
Apparently, you didn't read the post...

I did. I found the reasoning unconvincing. Not surprisingly though. He is now currently 1/3 of the way to the nominee and the delegates for tonight arent all distributed.

Yet somehow despite winning more states and delegates than the others, he has had a critical loss.

The reasoning doesnt follow.

Without going into the post, voter participation was down in almost every state that voted last night. Romney didn't get as many votes in most of the states he won than McCain got in teh same states in 2008.

In short, Obama doesn't have to win over ONE McCain voter to win. He just has to get about 83% of the people who showed up for him in 2008 to show up again.

Romney has to get every vote McCain got and THEN get at least 6 million voters who went for Obama last time to go for him this time.

The very fact that he's not winning over a lot of new voters in these primaries, even with no contest on the Democrat side and much weaker opponents, is a sign of profound weakness.

This isn't a "Let's Roll" Primary. This is a "Let's get this over with" primary.

Mitt needs a "Morning in America" moment badly. He needs it now so that he can get momentum coming out of the primary process.

The longer this goes, the more damage is done to the base. The fewer folks show up or care about Mitt or the nomination process in General. Meanwhile, the DNC is quietly ramping up it's proxies to jump on the nominee, whoever it is, coming out of the Convention.

The GOP Nominee will come out of convention with a little bit of momentum. The problem is you could lose that momentum fast if you have to do a fence mending tour coming out of convention. The Nominee needs to go in with the base united behind them, and right now that isn't appearing likely.
 
It's just more blah blah blah, from the establishment that social conservatism will lose the election, when every time we run a social conservative, like Reagan or Bush, THEY WIN.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Unfortunately, the social conservative in the race is losing. Unless someone checks their ego at the door (Newt) the one Social Con in this race isn't going to be the nominee. The Pro-Mandate Liberal Governor from the Liberal State will be.
 
Well for a "loser" Romney did pretty good on Super Tuesday.

I agree Claudette that he won. The problem for him is that he does have to win the nomination out right though with delegates and he keeps winning narrow victories and losing States outright. If he goes to a brokered convention he's in serious trouble.
Technically, Clinton won the popular vote in primaries, one of which was sanctioned by the Democratic party under party rules in 2008. Obama won the nomination, and the presidency. THAT long long drawn out battle did not hurt the nominee. The pertinent only matter of concern for Republicans is third party spin off.

Unfortunately, Hillary lined up right behind Obama going into the Convention. Obama came out of convention with a fairly unified base. I don't see that happening in the GOP convention this year, but I could be wrong.
 
Considering few if any people here actually consider you an independent, perhaps it would be wise to point out that independent clearly means something different to different people.

You are correct! I define Independent as follows:

Independent: Having no affiliation with a specific political party or ideology. One who does not adhere to or believe that the views of a specific party are always or nearly always correct. One who bases their views on issues or support of a specific candidate, based on personal conclusion, rather than party affiliation.

Those who claim that I am not an Independent have the following definition:

Independent: Someone who is not a Conservative and doesn't agree with Conservatives 90% or more of the time. One who criticizes Liberals and Democrats for their shortcomings and mistake BUT also has the gall to acknowledge them when they have done something well. Anyone providing facts that Conservatives dont like.

Thanks for the suggestion! Glad I could clear that up! :eusa_angel:
 
Last edited:
Considering few if any people here actually consider you an independent, perhaps it would be wise to point out that independent clearly means something different to different people.

You are correct! I define Independent as follows:

Independent: Having no affiliation with a specific political party or ideology. One who does not adhere to or believe that the views of a specific party are always or nearly always correct. One who bases their views on issues on personal conclusion, rather than party affiliation.

Those who claim that I am not an Independent have the following definition:

Independent: Someone who is not an Extreme Conservative and doesn't agree with Conservatives 90% or more of the time. One who criticizes Liberals and Democrats for their shortcomings and mistake BUT also has the gall to acknowledge them when they have done something well. Anyone providing facts that Conservatives dont like.

Thanks for the suggestion! Glad I could clear that up! :eusa_angel:
 
And you are welcome to think that.... and even blog about it. But, it's nothing more than an opinion.... you should retitle your blog.... because it is dishonest to claim that you are 'the' independent view.... you are 'an' independent view. That's the whole point with being 'independent'... we tend to speak for ourselves.

Okay, a couple things here little girl. First, you can whine all you want about the blog not being "independent enough" for you but since I've already kicked your great big fat ass on whether you're actually an Independent, that doesn't mean much, does it? :lol:
Oh well, maybe in the next thread, you can post about something other than me...

So, little man... I suspect it is the same insecurity that drives you to write a blog in which you clearly misrepresent yourself as in some way speaking on behalf of independents that also drives you to whine about people who challenge your drivel. That's understandable. It must be hard to get your ass kicked by a girl so regularly.

LOL! This is fun. Again. You're not an Independent. You're a mindless drone whose every opinion is so easily predicted you might as well not bother to post. For instance, I predicted you would not address the topic at all (Romney's challeneges with Santorum) but would vote about the object of your obssession: me. See signature.
But again, let's make you Cut & Run again:
What are the 4 Conservative and 4 Liberal views you most strongly advocate?
Ya see, people who are not whackjob idiots (not saying that's you of course, saying we'll see... :lol:) know that agreeing with Conservatives on everything doesn't make you an Independent, it makes you a Conservative. Time to dodge, post about me or Cut & Run there chubby :eek:)
 
He won't. Once bitten, twice shy.

I've not talked to one Obama supporter whose told me that he's just itching to vote for the Weird Mormon Robot.

I've talked to a lot of McCain supporters, not to mention myself, who will not vote for scumbag Romney.


Wow, is that your scientific polling method, you illogical, lying, lefty fuck?

Hmmm. Such insight and intellect. So the majority of ConservaRepubLitarian posts here are little whinefests about "Oooh. He wrote something I don't like so he must not be an Independent!" and little if anything about the fact that Romney is being forced to continue on a course further and further to The Right - and away from the votes that win elections.

That is significant difference between this primary and the 2008 primary that the Conservs love to tout as being proof this is all fine for Romney. In that primary, no one was battling to prove that Clinton or Obama were "Liberal enough" for their base. They weren't racing to The Left, they were battling for The Middle. The direction that wins General Elections.

The opposite is true with this primary.

As far as "scientific polling"? I've seen the Conservs here post and support the poll that came out from RW Gallup, stating Obama would lose big. Of course, any other poll and suddenly they don't like polls anymore or "it's to early" or some other excuse.
Todays Polls:

RCP Average 2/10 - 3/6 -- 49.5 44.3 Obama +5.2
Rasmussen Tracking 3/4 - 3/6 1500 LV 49 42 Obama +7
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 2/29 - 3/3 RV 50 44 Obama +6
Politico/GWU/Battleground 2/19 - 2/22 1000 LV 53 43 Obama +10
USA Today/Gallup 2/20 - 2/21 881 RV 47 47 Tie
Associated Press/GfK 2/16 - 2/20 1000 A 51 43 Obama +8
Quinnipiac 2/14 - 2/20 2605 RV 46 44 Obama +2
Democracy Corps (D) 2/11 - 2/14 1000 LV 49 45 Obama +4
CNN/Opinion Research 2/10 - 2/13 937 RV 51 46 Obama +5

Unkotare, I'm sure if you would like to know the science or methodology, the fine folks at Rasmussen, AP etc... would be happy to tell you. :eusa_angel:
 
Last edited:
Well for a "loser" Romney did pretty good on Super Tuesday.

Yes he did. He will be the GOP nominee.


imagesCAS7X50B.jpg

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/

No question about it!
14 states won by romney/7 for Santorum
6 states won on super tuesday for romney/3 for Santorum
Big wins
Romney: Mass 38, Virgina 43, Idaho 32 delegates
Santorum: Tenn, so far 25 for santorum/10 for Romney(could charge)

Other wins(small wins or divide)
Romney:VT 9 romney, 4 santorum, Alaska, Ohio 35 Romney/21 Santorum(7 to be added soon, large percent of them likely romney)
Santorum: ND 11 Santorum, 7 Romney, OK 14 Santorum/13 Romney/13 Newt--Yep a split!


Romney blown 3 states out of the park! His home state by 72%! Wining delegates in all states including Ga.
-Ga as of now is going to give romney 13 delegates compared to 2 for Santorum. Yes Newt won it, but it is interesting looking at the break down.

Total delegates won so far! Hard/soft
Romney 386-415(green papers or fox news) compared to 175-159 for Santorum.
Hard delegates!
Romney 302/Santorum 79! Newt has more at 96.

Not good for Santorum all around.
 
Last edited:
Well for a "loser" Romney did pretty good on Super Tuesday.

Yes he did. He will be the GOP nominee.

The Green Papers: United States Presidential Election 2012

No question about it!
14 states won by romney/7 for Santorum
6 states won on super tuesday for romney/3 for Santorum
Big wins
Romney: Mass 38, Virgina 43, Idaho 32 delegates
Santorum: Tenn, so far 25 for santorum/10 for Romney(could charge)

Other wins(small wins or divide)
Romney:VT 9 romney, 4 santorum, Alaska, Ohio 35 Romney/21 Santorum(7 to be added soon, large percent of them likely romney)
Santorum: ND 11 Santorum, 7 Romney, OK 14 Santorum/13 Romney/13 Newt--Yep a split!


Romney blown 3 states out of the park! His home state by 72%! Wining delegates in all states including Ga.
-Ga as of now is going to give romney 13 delegates compared to 2 for Santorum. Yes Newt won it, but it is interesting looking at the break down.

Total delegates won so far! Hard/soft
Romney 386-415(green papers or fox news) compared to 175-159 for Santorum.
Hard delegates!
Romney 302/Santorum 79! Newt has more at 96.

Not good for Santorum all around.

You guys realize of course, that one of the main points of the post, is that Romney will be the GOP nominee, right?
 
even when Romney wins he just looks so uncomfortable. He is being pushed too far to the right. Too me he just looks like he doesn`t want to be there.
 
Wins are losses.

I love the NewSpeak of O-bots.

You realize that you can win a battle and lose the war, right?

I don't necessarily agree with the OP, as if Mitt wants to win the nomination he has blown the window to "win quickly". Now the endgame for Mitt is to hope everyone stays in so the opposition doesn't rally behind one candidate. So he pretty well got what he wanted and needed on Super Tuesday.

The problem that it seems like the OP is trying to point out though, is that a long drawn out nomination process is going to weaken whoever the actual nominee turns out to be. Obama after beating Hillary was able to bring her into the fold and mend fences fairly quick. Prior to the convention actually.

If Mitt is the nominee, it's looking like the fight is going to to right into the Convention. We may even have a brokered convention meaning the fight will continue during the convention. That means any post Convention momentum Mitt gets is going to be wasted mending fences with the base while Obama begins in earnest to plant his flag firmly in the Middle of the electorate.

In addition, the longer this goes on the more money is wasted. You can debate if these knock down drag outs in the battleground states will hurt in the long run. What you can't argue is the GOP would much rather be spending the money on attacking Obama. Instead Mitt is wasting vast amounts of money to buy wins over Santorum.

At this point, I wouldn't say that Obama is looking at a safe re-election bid, but every day the GOP tears into each other they waste time, money, and good will with the voters. Every victory ends up costing valuable resources. Unless you see some kind of unity arise prior to the convention, there could be trouble in the general for the GOP.
 
Wins are losses.

I love the NewSpeak of O-bots.

You realize that you can win a battle and lose the war, right?

I don't necessarily agree with the OP, as if Mitt wants to win the nomination he has blown the window to "win quickly". Now the endgame for Mitt is to hope everyone stays in so the opposition doesn't rally behind one candidate. So he pretty well got what he wanted and needed on Super Tuesday.

The problem that it seems like the OP is trying to point out though, is that a long drawn out nomination process is going to weaken whoever the actual nominee turns out to be. Obama after beating Hillary was able to bring her into the fold and mend fences fairly quick. Prior to the convention actually.

If Mitt is the nominee, it's looking like the fight is going to to right into the Convention. We may even have a brokered convention meaning the fight will continue during the convention. That means any post Convention momentum Mitt gets is going to be wasted mending fences with the base while Obama begins in earnest to plant his flag firmly in the Middle of the electorate.

In addition, the longer this goes on the more money is wasted. You can debate if these knock down drag outs in the battleground states will hurt in the long run. What you can't argue is the GOP would much rather be spending the money on attacking Obama. Instead Mitt is wasting vast amounts of money to buy wins over Santorum.

At this point, I wouldn't say that Obama is looking at a safe re-election bid, but every day the GOP tears into each other they waste time, money, and good will with the voters. Every victory ends up costing valuable resources. Unless you see some kind of unity arise prior to the convention, there could be trouble in the general for the GOP.

I agree with all of the above and much was contained in my OP.
The other KEY Difference here: Obama and Clinton weren't out to win The Left - from the very beginning, they were racing to win the Middle, which also wins the General Election. The main point of the OP is that Santorum will continue to campaign as the "True Conservative" and force Romney further away from the votes that count: Independents and Moderates.
 
I agree with all of the above and much was contained in my OP.
The other KEY Difference here: Obama and Clinton weren't out to win The Left - from the very beginning, they were racing to win the Middle, which also wins the General Election. The main point of the OP is that Santorum will continue to campaign as the "True Conservative" and force Romney further away from the votes that count: Independents and Moderates.

That's a problem, definitely. The farther Right you run in the primary process, the farther you have to go to get back to the Middle to win the General.

I don't agree that Super Tuesday was a loss for Mitt, in any strategic or tactical sense though. If he'd completely shut down either Santorum or Newt he'd have found himself in a position where the "Not Mitt" crowd would have suddenly coalesced behind one candidate. And then he's really screwed. He has the resources to probably win that fight, but that would drain him even worse that the current 3 man race is presently*. His only real path to victory is essentially what happened on Super Tuesday. Keep everyone in to divide Mitt's opposition, then hope you can tear down Obama quickly in the time left with the resources left.

*Yeah, I said three man race. The truth is Ron Paul's voters aren't going anywhere. If Paul drops, they'd go third party at this point. The GOP race is really only Mitt, Rick, and Newt.
 
Last edited:
I agree with all of the above and much was contained in my OP.
The other KEY Difference here: Obama and Clinton weren't out to win The Left - from the very beginning, they were racing to win the Middle, which also wins the General Election. The main point of the OP is that Santorum will continue to campaign as the "True Conservative" and force Romney further away from the votes that count: Independents and Moderates.

That's a problem, definitely. The farther Right you run in the primary process, the farther you have to go to get back to the Middle to win the General.

I don't agree that Super Tuesday was a loss for Mitt, in any strategic or tactical sense though. If he'd completely shut down either Santorum or Newt he'd have found himself in a position where the "Not Mitt" crowd would have suddenly coalesced behind one candidate. And then he's really screwed. He has the resources to probably win that fight, but that would drain him even worse that the current 3 man race is presently*. His only real path to victory is essentially what happened on Super Tuesday. Keep everyone in to divide Mitt's opposition, then hope you can tear down Obama quickly in the time left with the resources left.

*Yeah, I said three man race. The truth is Ron Paul's voters aren't going anywhere. If Paul drops, they'd go third party at this point. The GOP race is really only Mitt, Rick, and Newt.

Careful, with that kind of insight and objectivity, you'll be branded a "Liberal" in no time :eusa_angel:

Well I guess as gentlemen, we'll agree to disagree. I think the longer Mitt has to chase the whacky candidates Right, the further he gets down the path of doom with Independents and Moderates.
It will be interesting to observe, in any case.
 

Forum List

Back
Top