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

[Avatar4321]

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.

lol. You think that's the tone of the coming campaign? Maybe from the left.

The GOP is going to be focused on fixing the economy and restoring liberty to the people.

 

[Conservative]

You know, if Romney gets the GOP nod, and if he were to by chance beat Obama in November... libatrds will still be saying it's actually a loss for Romney.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

No, the problem Romney has is that this shouldn't be a contest.

He's going up against two guys who got run out of Congress. Guys who were polling in single digits back in December.

He's outspending them at a rate of 10-1, and still struggling. Even in a state where the party outright cheats and keeps them off the ballot (Virginia) Romney still loses 41% of the vote to the crazy fringe candidate.

He's so weak he can't even condemn Rush Limbaugh when Rush has essentially driven millions of women and right-thinking men into the arms of the Democrats.

You started with "no" then didn't contradict anything I said...

Well, I really did, but you were too dumb to understand it. But your reading comprehension is that when I say I don't like Israel running over peace activists, you think I'm mad they Jews killed Jesus.

Romney shouldn't be still working at it at this point. Bush had it sewn up at this point in 2000, and so did McCain in 2008. Romney isn't going to lock down the nomination until May at the earliest.

The problem is he's a weak candidate who the majority of his party doesn't really want. He only got over 50% in two primaries last night, and that was because the Establishment cheated and threw everyone else off the ballot.

 

[Peach]

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.

lol. You think that's the tone of the coming campaign? Maybe from the left.

The GOP is going to be focused on fixing the economy and restoring liberty to the people.

Not until after the forged birth certificate issue is resolved. SADLY.

 

[JoeB131]

Of course it does, you ignorant shit.

When?

When did someone who was running behind in the polls suddenly leap to the front because he picked a really great running-mate?

I'm sure with your vast knowledge of history, you'd be able to give me a recent example.

So the only way it matters is if it makes them "suddenly leap to the front?"

Yeah. Pretty much. As Nixon said, in the Olympics, second place gets you the silver, but in politics, it gets you Oblvion.

But to address the actual point, not your idiotic warping of it, some recent picks that did matter:

1) Cheney: Very popular with fiscal conservatives. We hoped he'd pull W who was already clearly not fiscally conservative to the right. Didn't work, Cheney adopted W's neocon agenda. But it helped him with the election.

Actually, most people think Cheney was the Neo-con, not Bush. So your interpretation is already kind of bizarre here. But to the point, BUSH LOST THE POPULAR VOTE. The only reason why he was president was because his brother stole Florida for him, and the guys his Daddy appointed to the court went along with it.

2) HW: Reagan likely wins anyway, but it was a shrewd move. He disliked HW but unified the party and it killed any sliver of hope Carter had.

What killed any sliver Carter had was John Anderson running as an independent. That gave people who voted for Carter in 1976 a way to not admit they were wrong. Bush was irrelevent.

3) LBJ: Ditto JFK's pick.

Not recent, really. Not even withinmy lifetime, and I'm old. But to the point, JFK probably lost the popualar vote and the electoral vote was full of corruption. LBJ's corruption in Texas helped, but so did Dick Daley in Chicago.

4) Ferraro: Wasn't enough, Mondale was a horrible candidate. But the first woman on the ticket took the already liberal media to a whole new level of Democratic Nominee worship.

Mondale lost 49 states, including Ferroro's home state. Her mobbed up husband probalby didn't help much, but neither did the fact she was out of her league. I was asking for ones where the pick helped, not where it was a fuckin' catastrophe.

Those are just recent picks. In this case, it's critical for the Republican. They have to pick someone who's not a middle aged white guy to counter the Obamanation media and they need to assuage the Tea Party because none of the three left (Paul can't win) are solid Tea Party fiscal conservatives.

Again, if Romney is so weak he has to pick a veep to help him win, then he's toast.

Remember, the whole reason to vote for Romney was that he was the sensible moderate who could win those magical swing voters. But if he has to rely on his Veep to do that, what was the point in nominating him again?

 

[JoeB131]

When those "Racism in the Mormon Church" bits start runnin in August, just remember, I warned you first.

That ended decades ago; in reality the LDS have allowed African Americans to be IN THEIR CHURCHES longer than many Protestant churches:
***********************************************************
.

Doesn't fly. Blacks weren't allowed full membership in the Mormon Church until 1978.

Strom Thrumond had black folks on his staff by 1978.

And if you really think Romney's going to counterattack by saying, "Your Evangelical Churches were just as bad" when the Evangelicals already think he's a heretic and a weirdo, i think you are in for a rude awakening.