The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
Santorum's Career Suicide Mission
 

Sloth
Level

Join date: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 13663

ZEB wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Romney...Charisma? Zeb, are you serious?!



Absolutely!



Why do you say these kind of things? Nobody honestly thinks the man has a drop of charisma in his body. Hell, I think he's got higher unfavorables than McCain did at this point. C'mon, I get it, you support him. But, let's not get silly. Charisma?!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Sloth
Level

Join date: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 13663

C'mon, but seriously. Romney is the guy with the money and organization in place that people will most likely resign themselves to. Hoping his VP pick might, might, provide the enthusiasm he can't muster.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Sloth
Level

Join date: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 13663

Mufasa wrote:
I think that it's an enormous ego, Zeb.

This has been magnified by being pumped up as being the only "true" conservative.


Speaking of 2016; there is the real possibility that the GOP candidate will be facing a juggernaut named Hillary Clinton.



Mufasa


By 2016 the GoP will be running Hillary Clinton to attract the 'moderates.'

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 19363

Sloth wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Romney...Charisma? Zeb, are you serious?!



Absolutely!



Why do you say these kind of things? Nobody honestly thinks the man has a drop of charisma in his body. Hell, I think he's got higher unfavorables than McCain did at this point. C'mon, I get it, you support him. But, let's not get silly. Charisma?!


You are accusing me of not having what you lack --- Objectivity. Keep in mind I am not the purist here. From the beginning I only wanted a republican who I thought could win. And the only one that has a chance is Romney.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 19363

Sloth wrote:
C'mon, but seriously. Romney is the guy with the money and organization in place that people will most likely resign themselves to. Hoping his VP pick might, might, provide the enthusiasm he can't muster.



That's actually what Presidential tickets are all about. It's called "balancing" the ticket for a reason. When Bush (41) picked Dan Quayle they did so because he was young, conservative and energetic. Of course the press sliced him and diced ala Sarah Palin. But nonetheless it was a move to balance Bush.

By the way, you will see Romney pick a very staunch conservative.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Sloth
Level

Join date: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 13663

Depends on how you define 'purist.' If your singular issue is winning, that's rather 'purist.' And no, you abandoned objectivity. And that's fine, to a point. But when you're actually saying Romney, ROMNEY!, has Charisma...That goes too far.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

groo
Level

Join date: Aug 2011
Location:
Posts: 1122

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 19363

Sloth wrote:
Depends on how you define 'purist.' If your singular issue is winning, that's rather 'purist.' And no, you abandoned objectivity. And that's fine, to a point. But when you're actually saying Romney, ROMNEY!, has Charisma...That goes too far.



Well, if one were to call Central casting and wanted a man who looked Presidential the guy who would show up would be Mitt Romney out of the declared candidates. If you don't think that then it is YOU who lack objectivity because you hate Romney. I neither hate Romney or love him I merely look at him as a means to an end. If someone better declared their candidacy (early on)who I thought could beat Obama I would have been for that person.

Whereas you seemed to want to only settle on the perfect conservative. And I've gotten the idea over the months that were not all that happy with Santorum, but he was the closest thing you had to the ideal conservative. I could be wrong there and feel free to correct me.

You see we each approached the issue from different ends.

Me to win and beat Obama.

You to find a candidate the best represents your interests.

Nothing wrong with either thought process. Just making a point that it is I who am objective when looking at Romney.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 19363

[quote]groo wrote:



Good clip groo - Pennsylvania will be Santorum's Waterloo!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Location:
Posts: 6944

Sloth wrote:
After Romney loses, the only question will be, 'are we done running the Doles, McCains, And Romneys of the party?" Nobody worth paying attention to is going to blame shoe-string budget Santorum. If Santorum could cost Romney the election against Obama, imagine what the Obama machine is going to do to Romney against Obama.


^^What he said. And I've said it myself.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Location:
Posts: 6944

ZEB wrote:
But if you are insinuating that Santorum is going to try to win the nomination by stealing Romney's delegates after the people have spoken I think you're off base.



But the people aren't speaking are they? Record low turn outs and Romney has only been getting 41% of the Republican vote. Something's not right is it?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 19363

SexMachine wrote:
ZEB wrote:
But if you are insinuating that Santorum is going to try to win the nomination by stealing Romney's delegates after the people have spoken I think you're off base.



But the people aren't speaking are they? Record low turn outs and Romney has only been getting 41% of the Republican vote. Something's not right is it?



Yeah, good point, since there was not a huge turnout then of course the voters who did turn out and voted for Romney deserve to have their vote over turned at the convention.

(Eye Roll)

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Location:
Posts: 6944

ZEB wrote:
SexMachine wrote:
ZEB wrote:
But if you are insinuating that Santorum is going to try to win the nomination by stealing Romney's delegates after the people have spoken I think you're off base.



But the people aren't speaking are they? Record low turn outs and Romney has only been getting 41% of the Republican vote. Something's not right is it?



Yeah, good point, since there was not a huge turnout then of course the voters who did turn out and voted for Romney deserve to have their vote over turned at the convention.

(Eye Roll)


That's not what I meant. I meant, so far Romney has only garnered 41% of the Republican vote - at huge expense, yet everyone is supposed to rally around him. 61% of Republicans have already said they don't want him - masses more haven't bothered to turn out because they've been through all this before with Dole and McCain and they've had enough of RINOs. You are the one saying the "people have spoken" - Republicans have spoken and they don't like Romney. So stop the rally 'round the RINO bullshit.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 19363

SexMachine wrote:
ZEB wrote:
SexMachine wrote:
ZEB wrote:
But if you are insinuating that Santorum is going to try to win the nomination by stealing Romney's delegates after the people have spoken I think you're off base.



But the people aren't speaking are they? Record low turn outs and Romney has only been getting 41% of the Republican vote. Something's not right is it?



Yeah, good point, since there was not a huge turnout then of course the voters who did turn out and voted for Romney deserve to have their vote over turned at the convention.

(Eye Roll)


That's not what I meant. I meant, so far Romney has only garnered 41% of the Republican vote - at huge expense, yet everyone is supposed to rally around him. 61% of Republicans have already said they don't want him - masses more haven't bothered to turn out because they've been through all this before with Dole and McCain and they've had enough of RINOs. You are the one saying the "people have spoken" - Republicans have spoken and they don't like Romney. So stop the rally 'round the RINO bullshit.



Oh my gosh....don't you understand that 41% of the vote is actually good? Let me explain to you how primaries work. When you have 4 or 5 candidates in a race the lead candidate will be lucky to get 30% or more of the vote. The winner of any primary in either party is NEVER EVER going to have a majority of the vote when there are multiple candidates in a race. This has held true in almost every primary that has been run since 1960. The republican primary this time around is no exception. Stop thinking that it is -- IT IS NOT!

This has nothing to do with "RINO" this and "RINO" that this is all nonsense. I know in your mind it does but in reality IT DOES NOT! Did you notice that Santorum and the others combined don't have as many delegates as Romney? Don't you think if the republican's wanted someone else they'd have voted for someone else? You bash Romney as not being wanted by republicans yet he has almost 1.2 million more votes than the others. Does that mean that the republicans hated the others even more? Nonsense!

Elections are won by people who are neither far left or far right. And it is always difficult to win a primary when you are neither because the far left in the democratic party and the far right in the republican party come out to vote in the primary. Most republicans (and democrats) actually stay home and wait for the general election. And in the general election it's the candidate who can capture the center that is able to win (all other factors being equal of course).

Republicans have spoken and out of the four remaining candidates Romney is the clear favorite. Stop putting the Chris Matthews spin on the facts. And do some reading on hard fought primaries from history. Begin with the 1960 Presidential primary and work your way up to what is going on today and you'll have a far better understanding of what is happening with Romney. Why he's doing fine and why he could potentially beat Obama.

I don't know what else to tell you other than that. You have put out a ton of disinformation, not on purpose but because you are mistaken regarding how primaries are run. But whatever you do STOP listening to the mainstream liberal media they want Romney to lose and will say anything to cause that to happen.

Please read up on historical political primaries and you'll get a far better sense of what is actually happening.




  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

lanchefan1
Level 3

Join date: Feb 2003
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1193

SexMachine wrote:
ZEB wrote:
But if you are insinuating that Santorum is going to try to win the nomination by stealing Romney's delegates after the people have spoken I think you're off base.



But the people aren't speaking are they? Record low turn outs and Romney has only been getting 41% of the Republican vote. Something's not right is it?



Doesn't this speak more to the candidate pool as a whole?

If there are record low turnouts I would say they don't like ANY of the candidates.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 19363

lanchefan1 wrote:
SexMachine wrote:
ZEB wrote:
But if you are insinuating that Santorum is going to try to win the nomination by stealing Romney's delegates after the people have spoken I think you're off base.



But the people aren't speaking are they? Record low turn outs and Romney has only been getting 41% of the Republican vote. Something's not right is it?



Doesn't this speak more to the candidate pool as a whole?

If there are record low turnouts I would say they don't like ANY of the candidates.


Not true, a primary can have a low turnout for many reasons.

Not being interested in the candidates is certainly one. But, inevitability is another. If most believe Romney is going to be the nominee then they feel that what's the point of voting?

One more thing to look at is who votes in primaries. In the republican party more on the far right vote in the primary (dems the opposite). So, perhaps the far right was not thrilled with the choice of candidates.

All that means is that Romney must pick a staunch conservative as his running mate - And he will most certainly do that.

And when the choice is Obama/Biden (or Obama/Hillary) vs say Romney/Rubio or Romney/Ryan or Romney/Rand Paul (for example) the choice will be clear to those right wing voters won't it?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Location:
Posts: 6944

lanchefan1 wrote:
SexMachine wrote:
ZEB wrote:
But if you are insinuating that Santorum is going to try to win the nomination by stealing Romney's delegates after the people have spoken I think you're off base.



But the people aren't speaking are they? Record low turn outs and Romney has only been getting 41% of the Republican vote. Something's not right is it?



Doesn't this speak more to the candidate pool as a whole?

If there are record low turnouts I would say they don't like ANY of the candidates.


That could be the reason but it's not. Zeb gives part of the reason below - Romney has been chosen and they feel this whole primary process is pointless. Like in Virginia where the only names on the ballot were Romney and Paul.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Location:
Posts: 6944

ZEB wrote:

Oh my gosh....don't you understand that 41% of the vote is actually good?



No, garnering only 41% of the vote half way through the primaries with all his advantages suggests Romney is not a strong candidate.


Let me explain to you how primaries work. When you have 4 or 5 candidates in a race the lead candidate will be lucky to get 30% or more of the vote. The winner of any primary in either party is NEVER EVER going to have a majority of the vote when there are multiple candidates in a race. This has held true in almost every primary that has been run since 1960. The republican primary this time around is no exception. Stop thinking that it is -- IT IS NOT!

This has nothing to do with "RINO" this and "RINO" that this is all nonsense. I know in your mind it does but in reality IT DOES NOT! Did you notice that Santorum and the others combined don't have as many delegates as Romney? Don't you think if the republican's wanted someone else they'd have voted for someone else? You bash Romney as not being wanted by republicans yet he has almost 1.2 million more votes than the others. Does that mean that the republicans hated the others even more? Nonsense!

Elections are won by people who are neither far left or far right. And it is always difficult to win a primary when you are neither because the far left in the democratic party and the far right in the republican party come out to vote in the primary. Most republicans (and democrats) actually stay home and wait for the general election. And in the general election it's the candidate who can capture the center that is able to win (all other factors being equal of course).



"First, I defy any GOP voter to tell me that the party doesn't remember the past. The annals of Republican party history are filled with electoral disaster at the Presidential level after 1928. I point to Hoover's second term bid, Alf Landon, Wendell Wilkie, Thomas Dewey (twice), Richard Nixon (1960), Barry Goldwater, George H.W. Bush's second term bid, Bob Dole, and John McCain. Which of these things is not the like the other (to paraphrase Sesame Street)? That's right, Goldwater and Nixon. With the exception of Nixon in 1960, all the others were wipeout losses. With the exception of Goldwater, all the losing candidates were not conservatives, (at least not on enough issues to count). The GOP remembers its history well, but more often than not, chooses to repeat the mistake. While we often hear that the GOP is afraid to nominate another Goldwater (no memory problems there!) for fear of a landslide loss, they have seldom fared any better at the end of the voting day with their reasonable, moderate candidates. Ronald Reagan, a conservative in the mold of Goldwater won two landslide victories. That makes the truly conservative nominee for the GOP 2-1, while their moderates have compiled a far more modest 6-9 record (I count Nixon's 2 victories in 68 and 72, Bush 41 in 84, and G.W. Bush in 00 and 04). If I were a betting man, I would take 2-1 odds over 6-9 odds any day of the week for the same payoff.

What does this tell us? Simply that history might matter a little bit, and taken on face value, why would the GOP ever nominate a moderate presidential candidate? After all, history seems to imply that conservatism is a winner more often than not." - RedState


Republicans have spoken and out of the four remaining candidates Romney is the clear favorite. Stop putting the Chris Matthews spin on the facts. And do some reading on hard fought primaries from history. Begin with the 1960 Presidential primary and work your way up to what is going on today and you'll have a far better understanding of what is happening with Romney. Why he's doing fine and why he could potentially beat Obama.


I didn't say he couldn't potentially beat Obama. I'm just not convinced he's the strongest candidate. However I respect your political acumen and knowledge.


I don't know what else to tell you other than that. You have put out a ton of disinformation, not on purpose but because you are mistaken regarding how primaries are run. But whatever you do STOP listening to the mainstream liberal media they want Romney to lose and will say anything to cause that to happen.



I don't listen to the mainstream liberal media.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 19363

SexMachine wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Oh my gosh....don't you understand that 41% of the vote is actually good?

No, garnering only 41% of the vote half way through the primaries with all his advantages suggests Romney is not a strong candidate.


Do the math my friend. If there are four people in a race that means if they're all even then each gets 25% of the vote. If Romney has 41% and 1.2 million votes more than the next highest candidate...and if you add up all the delegates won by the other three and they still do not exceed what Romney has gained then I'd say he's doing rather well. You may not listen to the mainstream liberal media (and good for you) but that is the EXACT theme that they want you to believe! Romney is just not good enough to topple their chosen one.


With the exception of Goldwater, all the losing candidates were not conservatives, (at least not on enough issues to count).


What the article fails to mention is that all the winning candidates were NOT conservative with the exception of Ronald Reagan. That is called a falsehood by omission. One more impotant point politics has changed so much that I discount anything before 1952 depending on the specific political topic sometimes 1960.

I've already recanted all of the reasons that republicans have lost and it has more to do with the candidate being who they were. For example, did anyone really think that John McCain or Bob Dole were going to capture the White House? Come on...And the same can be said for an older looking George Bush (41) when he ran for reelection vs a young and charismatic Bill Clintion (of Course Ross Perot didn't help either).

Yes, it's best to be center right, but never ever far right (unless you are Reagan and then he didn't win because he was far right he won inspight of it). But the best thing to have on your side is to look Presidential. I know that's superficial but it happens to have worked just about every time! Most people are not yet engaged when they do start paying attention sometime after Labor Day they are going to give it a quick look and they are going to make a very snap decision. And that decision (by most not all) will be made based on how the candidate speaks, looks and smiles. Sad? Perhaps but true. They also want to hear some love coming from the candidates mouth. Optimism sells and Reagan new that.

Mitt Romney, whether you like him or not is irrelevant, is the best republican candidate in the race based on what America is buying. And the fact that he's stood attacks from both Gingrich, Perry and now Santorum month after month and is still on top tells you that he has staying power. Sure they've damaged him (easy to picture Obama giving his chief of staff high fives every time Santorum bashes Romney) but he is still our best chance at unseating the democrats chosen one.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

CSEagles1694
Level 1

Join date: Nov 2009
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 2724

orion wrote:
Bambi wrote:
ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
When a candidate wins a state he is not guaranteed to get any delegates that will support him at the convention.

Delegates must show up and volunteer to go to the convention.

Moreover, delegates do not have to support the winner of the popular vote or even the candidate they say they are supporting - they can change their mind when they get to the convention.

That is all.



Yeah, I'm aware of that Lifty. But if you are insinuating that Santorum is going to try to win the nomination by stealing Romney's delegates after the people have spoken I think you're off base. Granted Santorum has a healthy ego (they all do), but he's not an idiot. To even try such a stunt would be political suicide. If he ever pulled it off (which is a million to one) he'd get crushed by Obama.

But thanks for contributing to the thread.

I'll give you a better prediction, Santorum loses and then has a very minimal role at the convention.


Just sayin', delegates have not been counted yet because the convention hasn't happened yet.

In a brokered convention, gasp, even Ron Paul has a shot. And he is going to get lots of attention there if the GOB knows what's best for it.

I have heard tales of some RP supporters going to caucuses and if some other candidate wins they stick around and volunteer to be a delegate. :)

Darn, those Paultards sure are dumb! :p



While Ron Paul was NEVER a factor in the nominating process (as I predicted) he will be, and has already been courted by Mitt Romney. Paul's supporters are absolutely needed to carry Romney to victory. I don't think that there is any question that Paul will play a major role at the convention. And no doubt will be in line for an important cabinet post should Romney be fortunate enough to win.


Ron or Rand?


What would be totally, utterly and unbelievably awesome is if Ron Paul became chairman of the Fed.


x9000

CS

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

thunderbolt23
Level

Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 8162

CSEagles1694 wrote:

x9000

CS


Paul as chairman of an actual financial institution? One that is in charge of things like liquidity swaps in a modern globalized economy?

Paul doesn't know anything useful about economics. Oh, he's read and written on broad, abstract theories that no one takes seriously, and in his career he has been a deliverer of babies, a do-nothing Congressman, and conspiracy theorist.

Putting him in charge of a national bank would be the equivalent of putting a spider monkey at the helm of an F-16 mid-flight - the vessel would go down in a ball of flames, the only question would be how many people would get taken out in the process.

At the end of the first day of briefing, a Fed Chairman Paul would be found sucking his thumb in the corner and muttering jibberish.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 19363

thunderbolt23 wrote:
CSEagles1694 wrote:

x9000

CS


Paul as chairman of an actual financial institution? One that is in charge of things like liquidity swaps in a modern globalized economy?

Paul doesn't know anything useful about economics. Oh, he's read and written on broad, abstract theories that no one takes seriously, and in his career he has been a deliverer of babies, a do-nothing Congressman, and conspiracy theorist.

Putting him in charge of a national bank would be the equivalent of putting a spider monkey at the helm of an F-16 mid-flight - the vessel would go down in a ball of flames, the only question would be how many people would get taken out in the process.

At the end of the first day of briefing, a Fed Chairman Paul would be found sucking his thumb in the corner and muttering jibberish.



Shh..didn't you get the memo? You're not supposed to say that stuff until after Romney gets his support and the many koolaide guzzling 20 somethings that come with it.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Location: Austria
Posts: 24757

thunderbolt23 wrote:


Paul doesn't know anything useful about economics. Oh, he's read and written on broad, abstract theories that no one takes seriously,.


Meh, 80% of the Austrian school is mainstream economics canon.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Location: Austria
Posts: 24757

thunderbolt23 wrote:
[
Paul doesn't know anything useful about economics. .


What made me lol is that Bernanke apparently does, yet Paul is right with his predictions for a decade now whereas Bernanke gets it persistently wrong.

You must have a unique interpretation of the word "useful".





I love the intertubez.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Location: Austria
Posts: 24757

Another one of theses "Austrian" lunatics who have not the first clue when it comes to economics:




I am coming to the conclusion that those "Austrians" are clueless, but have powerful supernatural abilities.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report