| Forum Index > General Forum |
Falling
Canada11398 Posts
On January 11 2012 11:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Ron Paul is going to SC tomorrow and plans to expanding advertising targeting Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. No idea why he doesn't target Romney. Maybe he's hoping Gingrich and Perry will pull Romney's house down for him? | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On January 11 2012 10:29 Derez wrote:] I'm still unsure why so many people rate Obama's chances so poorly. He has the money, has all his personal issues behind him, has proven to be able to run an incredible campaign and with some economic recovery he should be fine to be honest. I can't think of a single 'clean' republican candidate, except for maybe Huntsman. Partisan affiliation is still much closer to 2010 than to 2008. There may also be a significant enthusiasm gap. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On January 11 2012 11:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So if Ron Paul is going the convention strategy(again), it's obvious he will have more delegates than last time what is his actual plan? Announce a third party run and then have his own convention? I think it really depends on how many states he ends up winning. (If any at all). I certainly don't see him joining on as a VP to Romney/whoever, as that just doesn't seem to be his style. Personally I would laugh so hard if he runs as a 3rd party and completely fucks Romney over | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On January 11 2012 11:36 1Eris1 wrote: I think it really depends on how many states he ends up winning. (If any at all). I certainly don't see him joining on as a VP to Romney/whoever, as that just doesn't seem to be his style. Personally I would laugh so hard if he runs as a 3rd party and completely fucks Romney over I wouldn't be surprised if he got the most votes as a 3rd party candidate in the history of the US (although beating 1912 Roosevelt would be tough) | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On January 11 2012 11:36 1Eris1 wrote: I think it really depends on how many states he ends up winning. (If any at all). I certainly don't see him joining on as a VP to Romney/whoever, as that just doesn't seem to be his style. Personally I would laugh so hard if he runs as a 3rd party and completely fucks Romney over That is actually a fear in the Romney camp as that would/could be ruin for the campaign. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oeh2P.jpg) Santorum paid roughly $20 per vote, and essentially tied for first. Perry paid over $480 per vote, far more than any other candidate, and came in fifth. Just a little evidence against the claim that elections are all about who has the most money to spend.  | ||
|
Falling
Canada11398 Posts
...with country music playing the background. Which country comes first exactly?  He really isn't a very good orator, but it really is the case that every single televised candidate has now been given a shot at being the anti-Romney. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15732 Posts
| ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
| ||
|
Falling
Canada11398 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On January 11 2012 11:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: That is actually a fear in the Romney camp as that would/could be ruin for the campaign. Oh definetely. What would be really curious to me is how much he could take away from Obama. Imagine a 33/32/32 electoral college split or something. Ohhh the drama | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On January 11 2012 11:42 liberal wrote: Santorum paid roughly $20 per vote, and essentially tied for first. Perry paid over $480 per vote, far more than any other candidate, and came in fifth. Just a little evidence against the claim that elections are all about who has the most money to spend. The problem is much more apparent when you're looking at it from a national scale. Iowa is one of the most socially conservative states and not that great of a representation of the whole country. Perry has dug himself into a deep enough hole that no amount of money could save him. Apparently in over 90% of congressional races in 2008 were won by the candidate that spent more money. That's insanity. Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and.html | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
That's insanity. Not really. It's what you'd expect, the candidates with more appeal and support garnering more money. Barack Obama raised far more than John McCain in 2008 because he was the candidate with superior appeal. People back who think they will win. Now that Mitt has won NH, are you ready for The Hair vs. The Mouth? What a great choice we're going to have, Mittens Romney or Barackulus Obama. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
To be fair, we could argue that the most attractive candidate would attract the most money, and thus would have the capacity to spend the most money. But yeah it is pretty disturbing. Makes you wonder if someone like Bill Gates (or dare I say...Donald Trump) just blew his fortune completely in an attempt to win | ||
|
Falling
Canada11398 Posts
With unchecked corporate/ union spending, I'm not convinced. | ||
| ||
|
|
|
EPT
