To supporters of ginrich, paul, and santorum..

[snakedoc]

How do you feel about your candidate of choice staying in the race even though the odds of catching romney and getting the needed delegates is very remote? I am a diehard RP fan, but I know at this point it is just not going to happen. Gingrinch is in the same boat.

Santorum fans may feel differently as its still at least mathematically possible for him to catch romney, but very small chance in reality.

Knowing that the longer it drags out, the more it benefits Obama, particularly if it goes the brokered convention route, would you feel betrayed by your candidate if he dropped or would you rather see the Romney vs Obama showdown begin?

The Romney vs Obama showdown has begun something people seem to have forgotten is the 2008 Obama Hillary race went on until June I believe and that did not hurt Obama I think far to much is being made out of this who stays in the race stuff.

The difference being that Obama and Hillary were competitive because both were considered strong candidates going into the Fall, whereas this Republican race is competitive because all of the candidates are considered weak.

Considered weak by who? The media and political commentators who need something to talk about till the conventions and the general election the Democrats who would be saying the same thing if there were only two people still running as opposed to four.

 

[Valox]

Gingrich is right:

Romney is a waffling panderer with no core convictions. I saw this movie in 2004...a flip flopping multi-millionaire vs. a weak president with low approval numbers at the tail end of a recession. If you missed it, it didn't work out well for the flip flopper.

Santorum is ALL core conviction. He doesn't know when to downplpay those convictions. He believes his only route to the nomination is thru social conservative (which is probably true) but doesn't understand how to pivot away from that front and talk about the economy and smaller government.

Gingrich is eclipsed by a insurmountable mountain of baggage.

Ron Paul can't get traction...I do agree with a lot of what he says, but Iran cannot be allowed to become a nuclear power, Israel can't be left high and dry, we cannot just pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and IMO legalizing drugs is a bad idea.

Those are the candidates.

None of them IMO can win the general election.

Obama was a nobody...and he won a general election.

There are 340 million Americans...140 million of them self identify as conservative.

Surely there is someone out there that we can all enthusiastic support.

There are too many reasons that people self identify as conservative. Vastly different groups of people fall under that label.

I agree...now, a history lesson...let's look at the Republican presidential candidates that won, and the ones that lost.

Reagan...Conservative. Social Conservative? Yes. Won 2 terms.

Bush Sr...Moderate. Social Conservative? Not so much. Won 1st term (On Reagan's coattails), Lost 2nd term.

Dole...Moderate. Social Conservative? No. Lost.

Bush Jr...Conservative. Social Conservative? Yes. Won 2 terms.

McCain...Moderate. Social Conservative? No. Lost.


Do you see a pattern developing?

Nothing says Conservative like expanding the government and exploding the debt.

 

[kaz]

How do you feel about your candidate of choice staying in the race even though the odds of catching romney and getting the needed delegates is very remote? I am a diehard RP fan, but I know at this point it is just not going to happen. Gingrinch is in the same boat.

Santorum fans may feel differently as its still at least mathematically possible for him to catch romney, but very small chance in reality.

Knowing that the longer it drags out, the more it benefits Obama, particularly if it goes the brokered convention route, would you feel betrayed by your candidate if he dropped or would you rather see the Romney vs Obama showdown begin?

The bolded part is where you are wrong, and it makes the rest of your argument fall apart. That the Democratic party thinks the nominee needs to be picked by Iowa is part of their collectivist circle jerk, not a reflection of reality. It also prevents the left and their military wing, the liberal media, from focusing on attacking the nominee.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Romney vs Obama showdown has begun something people seem to have forgotten is the 2008 Obama Hillary race went on until June I believe and that did not hurt Obama I think far to much is being made out of this who stays in the race stuff.

The difference being that Obama and Hillary were competitive because both were considered strong candidates going into the Fall, whereas this Republican race is competitive because all of the candidates are considered weak.

Considered weak by who? The media and political commentators who need something to talk about till the conventions and the general election the Democrats who would be saying the same thing if there were only two people still running as opposed to four.

The electorate who have had quite a hard time making up their minds. The fact that none of the front runners were able to hold onto their momentum for more than a few weeks at a time is a pretty good indication that this field is weak. Not to mention we still have people hoping for a savior to still jump in the race.

 

[JoeB131]

How do you feel about your candidate of choice staying in the race even though the odds of catching romney and getting the needed delegates is very remote? I am a diehard RP fan, but I know at this point it is just not going to happen. Gingrinch is in the same boat.

Santorum fans may feel differently as its still at least mathematically possible for him to catch romney, but very small chance in reality.

Knowing that the longer it drags out, the more it benefits Obama, particularly if it goes the brokered convention route, would you feel betrayed by your candidate if he dropped or would you rather see the Romney vs Obama showdown begin?

To my mind, a choice between Romney and Obama is no choice at all.

I'm not happy with Santorum or Gingrich, but I'm hoping at a brokered convention, we'd might take a step back from this flawed system and say, "Wait, we really can do better."

Which is what conventions used to be fore. Primaries were just an advisory on how the party wanted to go, they weren't meant to be iron-clad.

What benefits Obama is that Romney is an awful candidate that only about 35% of Republicans are enthusiastic about. (by comparison, 47% were enthusiastic about McCain, but he still lost.)

If everyone else stood down right now, the Media would largely ignore Romney until the Olympics are over, then bury him by reminding the world. "Oh, yeah. He's an asshole. And a Mormon. But we repeat ourselves."

 

[JoeB131]

Not going to happen. Not in time to have that candidate ready at the convention.

No such thing as a fresh start either. Gingrich has already said he doesn't think that either Romney or Santorum can win against Obama, so he's staying in this for his own glory, not to help keep numbers from Romney so that Santorum has a better chance.

If he thinks that the nomination going to the third face finisher after a "fresh start" at the convention is even possible, much less a good thing, then he's every bit as crazy as I've ever called him in my most hyperbolic moment.

And he will bring about the creation of a whole lot more Democrats than exist right now.

And Romney won't?

Romney will do a lot of damage because he'll probably wake the Evangelicals up to an ugly reality.

"We don't care about YOUR issues, we only care about getting a guy in Wall Street Likes."

Romney will take the GOP in the wrong direction in a faster pace. What the GOP needs to do is reconnect with working people, not alienate them by nominating "the guy who lays you off."

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah ... that gift from God thing from Santorum .... *shudder* ......

That's going to be on practically endless loop if he gets the nomination.

That works on the assumption that Obama really wants to talk about abortion.

Nobody really wants to talk about abortion..

Nobody thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. Clinton makes a weasel worded statement like "Abortion should be safe legal and rare", but then he doesn't say why he'd want them to be ''rare". Because no one really likes them.

Now, I think Santorum would be a weak candidate for other reasons, but he has strengths Romney won't have- his ability to energize the base and the fact he can appeal more to working folks who have really been hit by this recession.

 

[Amelia]

Not going to happen. Not in time to have that candidate ready at the convention.

No such thing as a fresh start either. Gingrich has already said he doesn't think that either Romney or Santorum can win against Obama, so he's staying in this for his own glory, not to help keep numbers from Romney so that Santorum has a better chance.

If he thinks that the nomination going to the third face finisher after a "fresh start" at the convention is even possible, much less a good thing, then he's every bit as crazy as I've ever called him in my most hyperbolic moment.

And he will bring about the creation of a whole lot more Democrats than exist right now.

And Romney won't?

Romney will do a lot of damage because he'll probably wake the Evangelicals up to an ugly reality.

"We don't care about YOUR issues, we only care about getting a guy in Wall Street Likes."

Romney will take the GOP in the wrong direction in a faster pace. What the GOP needs to do is reconnect with working people, not alienate them by nominating "the guy who lays you off."

Giving the nomination to the 3rd place finisher in the primaries will create more democrats than giving it to the 1st place finisher.

I don't know what effect giving it to the 2nd place finisher would have on people's sense of fairness, but jumping right over to the not-Romney who was soundly rejected by the electorate would be about the best way to tell voters that, yes, the party is in shambles, and no, the party doesn't care what the majority said in the primaries.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Giving the nomination to the 3rd place finisher in the primaries will create more democrats than giving it to the 1st place finisher.

I don't know what effect giving it to the 2nd place finisher would have on people's sense of fairness, but jumping right over to the not-Romney who was soundly rejected by the electorate would be about the best way to tell voters that, yes, the party is in shambles, and no, the party doesn't care what the majority said in the primaries.

What ever gave you the idea that the Party gives a SHIT about what the People want?? The Party is going to give you the choice it WANTS to give you, the People be DAMNED.

Or haven't you noticed all the vote fraud going on in this primary season? Of course you haven't, because vote fraud is GOOD when it serves the Party, right?

 

[Londoner]

People are giving Obama too much credit if they think the eventual GOP candidate can be harmed by a long primary season.

Given the economy, a ham sandwich could beat Obama.

Same thing with Bush. After Iraq, and after the inaction on the housing bubble, and after the destruction of the banking system . . . a ham sandwich could have beaten Bush.

The GOP played this one brilliantly. They put Obama in the largest economic hole in over half a century. Then they blamed him for the grave they dug for him. Now they are poised to re-take Washington and do what they always do: double the debt and triple the deficits. Look at Reagan compared to Carter, or Bush compared to Clinton . . . Republicans always spend twice as much . . . and they always let corporations get away with murder . . . and they always start expensive wars . . . and they always weaken primary markets like energy, banking, and housing by allowing predators to run the show. (When Bush was approached about curbing subprime predatory lending, he did nothing. Republicans had complete control for 6 years . . . and their policies destroyed a generation of Americans. Bush was begged to burst the housing bubble before it got too big. He said that the market would take care of it. He was wrong. Housing collapsed and it destroyed the banking system)

Look at history. Carter said we needed to move more of our total energy off petroleum. Reagan, who was funded by big oil, convinced America that the middle east would never be a problem. Reagan crushed the alternative and conservation movements. And now America is tied to a substance which is destroying the economy. This is not hard stuff to understand.

 

[Katzndogz]

If it gets rid of obama, I don't care who it is, he has my vote and the votes of a whole lot of other people. Then we can start undoing his damage.

 

[JoeB131]

Giving the nomination to the 3rd place finisher in the primaries will create more democrats than giving it to the 1st place finisher.

I don't know what effect giving it to the 2nd place finisher would have on people's sense of fairness, but jumping right over to the not-Romney who was soundly rejected by the electorate would be about the best way to tell voters that, yes, the party is in shambles, and no, the party doesn't care what the majority said in the primaries.

Half the primaries haven't happened yet.

Also, are we talking about the number of votes cast - so far- or the number of delegates won, because they aren't quite the same thing, are they?

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Republican Vote Count

Romney- 3,477,020
Santorum- 2,286,339
Gingrich 2,106,200
Paul - 949,914

(These figures do not include the popular vote from MO primary, because those delegates will be determined by today's caucus).

The three NOT Romney's have gotten a total of Well over 5 million votes. The Majority has said, "Not Romney".

And if the whole contest had been on the up and up, we wouldn't have a discussion about what is fair. But the GOP keeping Rick and Newt off the ballot in VA, or awarding Mitt more delegates than he won proportionately in MI and OH, or AZ and FL giving all the delegates even though the GOP's own rules say they have to be distributed proportionately in an early primary.

The GOP is in shambles, because it has lost its way. It should not further complicate the issue by nominating a bad candidate produced by a flawed process.

 

[Amelia]

Giving the nomination to the 3rd place finisher in the primaries will create more democrats than giving it to the 1st place finisher.

I don't know what effect giving it to the 2nd place finisher would have on people's sense of fairness, but jumping right over to the not-Romney who was soundly rejected by the electorate would be about the best way to tell voters that, yes, the party is in shambles, and no, the party doesn't care what the majority said in the primaries.

Half the primaries haven't happened yet.

Also, are we talking about the number of votes cast - so far- or the number of delegates won, because they aren't quite the same thing, are they?

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Republican Vote Count

Romney- 3,477,020
Santorum- 2,286,339
Gingrich 2,106,200
Paul - 949,914

(These figures do not include the popular vote from MO primary, because those delegates will be determined by today's caucus).

The three NOT Romney's have gotten a total of Well over 5 million votes. The Majority has said, "Not Romney".

And if the whole contest had been on the up and up, we wouldn't have a discussion about what is fair. But the GOP keeping Rick and Newt off the ballot in VA, or awarding Mitt more delegates than he won proportionately in MI and OH, or AZ and FL giving all the delegates even though the GOP's own rules say they have to be distributed proportionately in an early primary.

The GOP is in shambles, because it has lost its way. It should not further complicate the issue by nominating a bad candidate produced by a flawed process.

The majority have said not-Romney.

AND not Gingrich.

So far.



Gingrich had his surge - heck, he had two of them - and he lost them both.


Maybe the numbers will shift before the convention. But whoever comes in third by then, jumping over the highest placing not-Romney to the 3rd place finisher will just plain be "bad form".

 

[JoeB131]

Amelia, I don't think it's ever going to get that far, but if we do get to a point of a brokered convention, they should throw all four of them out and start fresh.

A more likely scenario is that if Mittens is short on delegates, and Gingrich and Paul are being recalcitrant, he'll probably just cut a deal with Santorum. Kerry cut a deal with Edwards, Reagan cut a deal with Bush, JFK cut a deal with LBJ. When the party is this sharply divided, it's probably the smart thing to do.

Of course, Mitt Romney will still have his underlying problem. People like me won't vote for him.

 

[Paulie]

Not going to happen. Not in time to have that candidate ready at the convention.

No such thing as a fresh start either. Gingrich has already said he doesn't think that either Romney or Santorum can win against Obama, so he's staying in this for his own glory, not to help keep numbers from Romney so that Santorum has a better chance.

If he thinks that the nomination going to the third face finisher after a "fresh start" at the convention is even possible, much less a good thing, then he's every bit as crazy as I've ever called him in my most hyperbolic moment.

And he will bring about the creation of a whole lot more Democrats than exist right now.

you realize no one like this exists right? and if he did that he/she would not appearl to the majority of the party. You are actually pretty close to describing ron paul and look how he is treated.

Gingrich is right:

Romney is a waffling panderer with no core convictions. I saw this movie in 2004...a flip flopping multi-millionaire vs. a weak president with low approval numbers at the tail end of a recession. If you missed it, it didn't work out well for the flip flopper.

Santorum is ALL core conviction. He doesn't know when to downplpay those convictions. He believes his only route to the nomination is thru social conservative (which is probably true) but doesn't understand how to pivot away from that front and talk about the economy and smaller government.

Gingrich is eclipsed by a insurmountable mountain of baggage.

Ron Paul can't get traction...I do agree with a lot of what he says, but Iran cannot be allowed to become a nuclear power, Israel can't be left high and dry, we cannot just pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and IMO legalizing drugs is a bad idea.

Those are the candidates.

None of them IMO can win the general election.

Obama was a nobody...and he won a general election.

There are 340 million Americans...140 million of them self identify as conservative.

Surely there is someone out there that we can all enthusiastic support.

Only 120 million or so total people are going to be voting and 1/3 of them don't vote partisan and will not just choose the republican whether they identify as conservative or not.

So that 140 million stat is rather useless.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

None of this matters because the Rs don't give a crap about what is best for the country. They know the R candidates will put us into a complete depression but they dont care. They have been told to ignore the truth, ignore that President Obama has created four million jobs vs Rs ZERO jobs, Obama has created economic growth vs Rs ZERO, Obama lowered taxes vs Rs raising taxes so wealthy doesnt have to pay their fair share - And all the rest.

They are lemmings and they will do as they have been ordered to do. They are incapable of thinking for themselves. Read this forum for proof. They are brainless robots, marching toward the edge of the cliff.

They will hurt their families, kill their own futures because all that matters is that they follow their orders to beat Obama.

And most of won't admit it's because he is black.

Fact is, there is no other reason.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If it gets rid of obama, I don't care who it is, he has my vote and the votes of a whole lot of other people. Then we can start undoing his damage.

See? This is what I mean. Complete ignorance about President Obama's considerable accomplishments but these poor fools would vote for Scooby Do if that's what their owners told them to do.

 

[Amelia]

If it gets rid of obama, I don't care who it is, he has my vote and the votes of a whole lot of other people. Then we can start undoing his damage.

See? This is what I mean. Complete ignorance about President Obama's considerable accomplishments but these poor fools would vote for Scooby Do if that's what their owners told them to do.

Some people consider shredding the constitution an achievement. Some people don't. wgd?

 

[blu]

If it gets rid of obama, I don't care who it is, he has my vote and the votes of a whole lot of other people. Then we can start undoing his damage.

See? This is what I mean. Complete ignorance about President Obama's considerable accomplishments but these poor fools would vote for Scooby Do if that's what their owners told them to do.

please list these "considerable accomplishments"