|
On January 04 2012 14:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Romney still loses either way as both sides are blasting him for spending somewhere over 9 million dollars in bashing Newt etc. showing that he certainly isn't so middle class after all.
Also listening to Santorum, fucking moron.
The sad thing is that he's almost certainly going to get most of Perry and Bachmann's votes after Iowa.
|
On January 04 2012 14:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Romney still loses either way as both sides are blasting him for spending somewhere over 9 million dollars in bashing Newt etc. showing that he certainly isn't so middle class after all.
Also listening to Santorum, fucking moron.
tell us how you REALLY feel about santorum? hes got ideas that will play very well to the base
|
On January 04 2012 14:32 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 14:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Romney still loses either way as both sides are blasting him for spending somewhere over 9 million dollars in bashing Newt etc. showing that he certainly isn't so middle class after all.
Also listening to Santorum, fucking moron. The sad thing is that he's almost certainly going to get most of Perry and Bachmann's votes after Iowa.
I don't know, I feel like if Ron Paul can spin his pro-life stance the right way, he may be able to take some of those Conservative Christian votes.
|
Canada11603 Posts
Santorum's success makes no sense to me. All along he's come across as a one note candidate similar to Cain. I hate one note candidates no matter how much I agree with it or not. But I guess it really is the last man standing deal.
And as far as social conservatives go... I could get behind a Huckabee or dare I say? Bush, but Santorum? I don't understand why they give the codger label to Paul- Santorum always comes across as the cranky one to me.
Too bad for Hunstman. If the primary was longer, he literally would have been the last man standing if the media were given enough time to tear Santorum down.
One thing I have to say, despite my tacit cheering for Paul (despite the fact I'd vote against him so fast if he ever came to Canada,) is those newsletters really muddied the waters. The media completely ignored him for so long, but they could never pin him with anything troublesome. But then those newsletters came out- or as Paul might think, trotted out again. Regardless of whether it was fair or not or whether he's racist or not (I have a hard time seeing him as racist) something dumb happened. I was dismissing it out of hand as anti-Paul bias. And maybe it is, but it still doesn't make sense to have a newsletter going out in your own name espousing those views. I think I believe him, when he says he didn't write them, nor believed him. But then that really leaves incompetence or a blind trust to some shady people and you never quality controlled your own newsletter.
In the end it's always was a very weak field of candidates. Not really convinced on this whole primary thing to figure out the president. Seems a colossal waste of time and money when a Parliamentary system works much more quickly and the party can vet the dang candidates themselves rather than have the media play this giant circus of who's big and who's not. At least then, you can see if the leader can run a party at a national level or whether he's a weak candidate with weak ideas (Stephane Dion of Canada's Liberals) or have years of vetting like seasoned politicians like Jean Cretien or even Paul Martin's Pyrrhic victory- very much like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown actually. Or years of rebuilding and consolidating like Harper's Conservatives or a party built around the charisma like Jack Layton's NDP. If they can run the gauntlet of their own party, then at least it cuts out the media to dictate who are the important candidates within the party itself.
I still don't get how Gary Johnson can get cut or Ron Paul can have 90 seconds of debate time while polling much higher than bottom tier candidates or special interest groups holding debates and choosing who can be in it. At least we didn't have an actual candidate funding a debate like dear old Ronald Reagan. The whole system seems farcical
|
On January 04 2012 14:34 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 14:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Romney still loses either way as both sides are blasting him for spending somewhere over 9 million dollars in bashing Newt etc. showing that he certainly isn't so middle class after all.
Also listening to Santorum, fucking moron. tell us how you REALLY feel about santorum? hes got ideas that will play very well to the base
And no money at all. He did well in Iowa, but that's a state known for it's evangelism. That shit is not going to work in NH, especially without any money.
|
On January 04 2012 14:34 ryanAnger wrote:
I don't know, I feel like if Ron Paul can spin his pro-life stance the right way, he may be able to take some of those Conservative Christian votes.
...Thereby losing the independents and libertarians attracted to Paul's civil rights. The Guardian is reporting that somewhere around 50% of independents and democrats voted for Paul in entry polls.
...of the independents and democrats that voted in the Republican Iowa caucus, of course. Not 50% total, but 50% of 30% or something like that.
|
On January 04 2012 14:30 ryanAnger wrote:Perhaps the only smart thing Sarah Palin has ever said: Show nested quote +“Here’s the deal,” Palin told Fox Business Network’s Neil Cavuto. “The GOP would be so remiss to marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters as we come out of Iowa tonight and move down the road to New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida, et cetera. If we marginalize these supporters who have been touched by Ron Paul and what he believed in over these years, well, then, through a third party run of Ron Paul’s or the Democrats capturing those independents and these libertarians who supported what Ron Paul’s been talking about, well, then the GOP is going to lose. And then there will be no light at the end of the tunnel.” Also, at CC above: Not only that, but both Perry and Gingrich have significant attack ad campaigns planned on Romney for New Hampshire, in addition to whatever Ron Paul comes up with (and he has proven that his attack ads are effective.)
Republican campaigns are so dirty. I think the worst was in 2001 though, Karl Rove orchestrated a ridiculous smear campaign in South Carolina. He spread rumors that John Mccains adopted Indian children were actually black children that he fathered with a mistress, and that Mccain was mentally unstable and involved in kickback schemes.
|
On January 04 2012 14:35 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 14:34 Deathmanbob wrote:On January 04 2012 14:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Romney still loses either way as both sides are blasting him for spending somewhere over 9 million dollars in bashing Newt etc. showing that he certainly isn't so middle class after all.
Also listening to Santorum, fucking moron. tell us how you REALLY feel about santorum? hes got ideas that will play very well to the base And no money at all. He did well in Iowa, but that's a state known for it's evangelism. That shit is not going to work in NH, especially without any money.
he won iowa... even if he gets second he really wins there. he will have TONS of money coming in. Also if you watch the news stories, everyone says romney will be TRASHED in NH
|
Santorum is the Huckabee of 2008.
|
On January 04 2012 14:36 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 14:34 ryanAnger wrote:
I don't know, I feel like if Ron Paul can spin his pro-life stance the right way, he may be able to take some of those Conservative Christian votes.
...Thereby losing the independents and libertarians attracted to Paul's civil rights. The Guardian is reporting that somewhere around 50% of independents and democrats voted for Paul in entry polls.
He could make it ambiguous. Something like this:
Abortion should not be allowed to be legalized at a Federal level.
|
On January 04 2012 14:39 ryanAnger wrote:
He could make it ambiguous. Something like this:
Abortion should not be allowed to be legalized at a Federal level.
Ambiguous my ***. And that's unconstitutional.
|
On January 04 2012 14:39 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 14:35 ryanAnger wrote:On January 04 2012 14:34 Deathmanbob wrote:On January 04 2012 14:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Romney still loses either way as both sides are blasting him for spending somewhere over 9 million dollars in bashing Newt etc. showing that he certainly isn't so middle class after all.
Also listening to Santorum, fucking moron. tell us how you REALLY feel about santorum? hes got ideas that will play very well to the base And no money at all. He did well in Iowa, but that's a state known for it's evangelism. That shit is not going to work in NH, especially without any money. he won iowa... even if he gets second he really wins there. he will have TONS of money coming in. Also if you watch the news stories, everyone says romney will be TRASHED in NH
Santorum is definitely NOT going to be the one to fill the void. The difference between Iowa and NH is that Iowa was strictly registered Repubs and Independents. NH will be Repubs, Ind.'s, and Dems. NH is basically the first vote to determine general electability. With Dems in the mix, Santorum is screwed, and that is where Ron Paul will fill the void.
Romney will be hurting, Santorum is too far right, and Paul will pick up the disenfranchised Obama 2008 voters and Dems.
|
On January 04 2012 14:40 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 14:39 ryanAnger wrote:
He could make it ambiguous. Something like this:
Abortion should not be allowed to be legalized at a Federal level. Ambiguous my ***. And that's unconstitutional.
My phrase could mean any number of things:
Ron Paul is Pro-Life and doesn't want Abortion to be legal.
Ron Paul is Pro-Life and doesn't want Abortion to be legal Federally.
Ron Paul is Pro-Life but thinks it is the States right to decide on the legality of the issue.
People are having a difficult time putting themselves in laymans shoes. The average American doesn't actually do research. They listen to soundbites, and they hear what they want to hear. I think it's safe to say that everyone contributing in this thread has a basic understanding of what the candidates are for/against. WE ARE NOT THE AMERICAN MAJORITY. Just because something sounds like garbage here, doesn't mean it's going to sound like garbage to most of the idiots who vote in these elections with little to no real knowledge about anything political.
|
Romney and Santorum separated by 5 votes with over 99% in = insanity.
|
Dark day for liberty 
Actually dark day for anyone with a functioning brain I mean Santorum, really Iowa....
|
Canada11603 Posts
29K a piece for Romney and Santorum
and
25K for Ron Paul.
It really doesn't get much closer than that. I guess with a 4K lead the headlines will be Romney-Santorum tie, but that is ridiculously close to a 3 way tie. Regardless of how far Santorum plummets after this, I never ever thought he would do even this well. To me he was always the Mike Gravel or the Dennis Kucinich of the Democrats 08 primary race. As in, that guy's reeeeaally far out there and doesn't have a hope in hell of getting anywhere in any riding or caucus.
|
Far too often this thread is like watching a bunch of Klu Klux Klan members debate who should be the next head of the NAACP.
Show of hands -- how many people here are actually registered republicans?
|
On January 04 2012 14:43 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2012 14:39 Deathmanbob wrote:On January 04 2012 14:35 ryanAnger wrote:On January 04 2012 14:34 Deathmanbob wrote:On January 04 2012 14:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Romney still loses either way as both sides are blasting him for spending somewhere over 9 million dollars in bashing Newt etc. showing that he certainly isn't so middle class after all.
Also listening to Santorum, fucking moron. tell us how you REALLY feel about santorum? hes got ideas that will play very well to the base And no money at all. He did well in Iowa, but that's a state known for it's evangelism. That shit is not going to work in NH, especially without any money. he won iowa... even if he gets second he really wins there. he will have TONS of money coming in. Also if you watch the news stories, everyone says romney will be TRASHED in NH Santorum is definitely NOT going to be the one to fill the void. The difference between Iowa and NH is that Iowa was strictly registered Repubs and Independents. NH will be Repubs, Ind.'s, and Dems. NH is basically the first vote to determine general electability. With Dems in the mix, Santorum is screwed, and that is where Ron Paul will fill the void. Romney will be hurting, Santorum is too far right, and Paul will pick up the disenfranchised Obama 2008 voters and Dems.
Primary are all about the too far right or too far left, the primary is a race to your base and then the general is a race to the middle. i will put 5 E sports dollars on santorum doing better then paul in NH
|
Well the Romney speech was... to be honest don't really know what that was.
|
On January 04 2012 14:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Well the Romney speech was... to be honest don't really know what that was.
it was a speech setting up a run against obama while seeming like a uniter. He starts his speech congratulating everyone on a great day showing how he can get a long and how he is a nice guy. then he SLAMS obama on everything he thinks he can slam him on.
I saw it as " i will win this and i need to start setting up my general run "
i could be wrong
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
