stasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3061 posts, RR: 1 Posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 616 times:
Willard "Mitt" Romney scores an easy win in the Nevada Republican Primary. Romney currently has 43 percent of the vote from the Nevada caucus in a heavily Mormon state. Romney showed surprisingly broad support, "winning 57 percent of white voters, 57 percent of women and 53 percent of men. Romney was the strong favorite in every age bracket except voters under 30, among whom Ron Paul drew 41 percent to Romney’s 39 percent" according to CNN News. The real question is whether Newt Gingrich will hold onto second place in the caucus, with many rural counties votes still to be counted - Libertarian leaning counties where Ron Paul is a very popular candidate. Gingrich has vowed to continue his Presidential campaign, but campaign contributions are likely to severely decrease after the thumping he has taken in Florida and now Nevada. Rick Santorum will come in a very distant fourth place in Nevada - although he may remain a highly ranked Vice Presidential choice for the Republican ticket.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 1, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 597 times:
No big surprise. The more wins Romney get, the harder it'll be to stop him. Paul and Santorum have it really hard since many have written them off. If Newt ends up losing to Paul it won't bode well for his campaign. Just glad Paul beat Santorum (assuming the remaining votes don't change that...)
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 2, posted (3 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 575 times:
I'm shocked.
How much more of this do we need to endure before we get to the nomination?
If the people in NV were true to their ideology, they would have gone for Paul.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 3, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 504 times:
How much more of this do we need to endure before we get to the nomination?
If the people in NV were true to their ideology, they would have gone for Paul.
I think it's simply the obsession with getting rid of Obama. Romney, the whole time, has been cheered on as the guy that is most "likely to defeat Obama." That means many voters suck it up and vote for Romney instead of someone like Paul (small government conservative/consitutionalist/libertarian) or Santorum (who I very much disagree with, but he's basically a social conservative's wet dream.) Even Newt has his good qualities, regardless of what you think of him, he is fierce and seems like he'd be a strong leader (not saying good, but strong.)
So in the obsession to get rid of Obama, they've picked a candidate that isn't very conservative because of one factor: he might defeat Obama better. If you think about it for more than 15 seconds, candidates like Santorum are obviously gonna poll much lower because many don't know who he is. I never heard of him prior to all this. Ask some independent voter who isn't deathly afraid of Obama if he/she would like to vote for Obama or 'some random Republican' (Santorum) and that independent would probably say Obama.
Now if the republican voters actually focused on issues and a strong candidate, and the candidates didn't blow almost all chances of being elected (through their cutthroat attacks on each other) they'd elect a strong, real candidate. THEN that candidate becomes stronger, debates Obama, and has the support of almost all of the GOP. If the candidate doesn't suck, I'm willing to bet that the "elect-ability factor" would be much higher than pre-nomination.
But now we have a guy dubbed "Obama-lite" set to win the nomination, who has made many goofs, and has been attacked on his capitalist career by the ultimate Republican politician (politician with a negative connotation) himself, Newt Gingrich.
tl;dr that's why you nominate a real candidate, not another Kerry or McCain that has the "highest chance of winning"
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 465 times:
Ron Paul did well in a state that has a lot of hostile voters as to the Federal Government as they own or control about 80% of the land. He also got the 'hooker' vote, was 'endorsed' by the owner and some of the 'ladies' of one fo the legal brothels. Still, with the possible exception of Maine, he will not get beyond 15% in any state.
Clearly Romney is the front runner and most likely candidate for the Republicans. Yes, he has made some stupid gaffes, he did support a version of 'Obamacare' in Massachusetts, and being a Mormon turns off some voters, but he is clearly on the anti-tax line, especially as to business and higher income persons, and pro cutting back on regulations and 'government', so he will get a lot of votes in November, especially from hard core right to moderate voters.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 6, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 428 times:
Quoting JetsGo (Reply 4): It's worth noting Nevada is nearly 10% Mormon and that Mormons made up roughly 25% of the voting block.
I know. And Americans have this horrible habit of caring more about a candidate's stated religion than their political views.
And that is why Romney has no chance of beating Obama. The Evangelicals will hold their noses and vote for him. But the mainstream American will be very uneasy about Romney's religion. I'm not saying it's right, nor am I agreeing with them. I'm just telling it like it is.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 7, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 427 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6): And Americans have this horrible habit of caring more about a candidate's stated religion than their political views.
I could only see this if he was a really devout Mormon (non-Mormons would be suspicious of some of his policies while Mormons would cheer them on) but Romney isn't really much of a hardcore Mormon. I was kinda surprised to see Newt being a Catholic, but I knew Santorum was one as well (and strangely he gets a lot of evangelical support, guess he's better than Romney the Mormon and Newt in their eyes.)
Then throw in what some are saying about our current president. Disagree with his policies all day, but does it matter if he was a Muslim? (Not saying he is!!!!) Some are saying that's why he's going "soft" on Iran and being "against" Israel, but he kept Gitmo, waited to end the war in Iraq, and we're still in Afghanistan, so I don't know what their basis is...
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 8, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 424 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7): I could only see this if he was a really devout Mormon (non-Mormons would be suspicious of some of his policies while Mormons would cheer them on) but Romney isn't really much of a hardcore Mormon.
That doesn't matter. Newt's a Catholic, asked his wife for an open marriage, cheated, and has been divorced three times. He's also vehemently anti-poor. Remember what the Catholic professors all wrote to Boehner about that subject?
It's stated/perceived religion that matters.
Obama is most likely an atheist. He rarely goes to church and it's pretty much for show when he does. But you cannot get elected for anything in this country if you acknowledge that you're an atheist. A Muslim will get elected with a Jew as his VP before an atheist sits in the Oval Office.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 36437 posts, RR: 86 Reply 9, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 423 times:
No surprise here.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2): If the people in NV were true to their ideology, they would have gone for Paul.
Quoting JetsGo (Reply 4): It's worth noting Nevada is nearly 10% Mormon and that Mormons made up roughly 25% of the voting block.
I thought the Mormon vote within the Nevada Republican Party would be higher than 25%.
Ron Paul would do very well in a general election in Nevada.
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 5): He also got the 'hooker' vote, was 'endorsed' by the owner and some of the 'ladies' of one fo the legal brothels.
Stop using derogatory words describing workers in the oldest profession.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 3): Even Newt has his good qualities, regardless of what you think of him, he is fierce and seems like he'd be a strong leader (not saying good, but strong.)
Newt has a new attitude. I hated this guy for many years but I like his tough speaking style and his command of any issue thrown at him. He isn't answering questions like a conventional politician. I find that ironic considering he is the epitome of a Washington insider. Too bad he wont be the nominee. I'd love to see him manhandle Obama in the debates.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 3): Paul (small government conservative/consitutionalist/libertarian)
He should have passed the torch to Gary Johnson. Same ideas but much more electable.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 3): Santorum (who I very much disagree with, but he's basically a social conservative's wet dream.)
Not really. Rick Santorum is a Catholic and many of the Christian fundies don't like the Catholics. Also, Rick Santorum is damaged goods that was defeated by 18% when he lost his bid for a 3rd term. That is embarrassing for a 2 term Senator. The only Protestant left in the race is Ron Paul and he isn't preachy about his religious beliefs. Newt Gingrich recently converted to Catholicism in 2009 with wife #3.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 10, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 419 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8): Obama is most likely an atheist. He rarely goes to church and it's pretty much for show when he does.
I'm not sure about that. I know that church attendance in Europe is pretty low, yet many (most ?) Europeans are "Christian." I think Obama is a Christian, but the one that goes to Church seldomly. But I won't pass judgment on him, to each's own.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 9): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 3):
Paul (small government conservative/consitutionalist/libertarian)
He should have passed the torch to Gary Johnson. Same ideas but much more electable.
I believe Gary Johnson endorsed Paul, and I think Johnson isn't going to run if Paul wins the nomination. I like both of them and am 90% sure I'm going to vote for one or another. In the Ron Paul circles I'm involved with, many are ready to give Johnson support if Paul doesn't run. There was a poll in NC with Obama vs Romney vs Johnson, and Johnson managed to get 10%. Paul's support seems to run around that range in a state he hasn't campaigned in, leading me to believe that Johnson gained that 10% from Paul supporters. Paul and Johnson share many ideas, Johnson seems to be a little more mainstream than Paul is. I doubt they'd run against each other, and I can only dream of a Johnson/Paul Libertarian ticket. Probably still wouldn't win, but they could probably gather at least 20% of the vote, hopefully leading to the adoption of the Libertarian Party as a real third party. /daydream
Quoting Superfly (Reply 9): Not really. Rick Santorum is a Catholic and many of the Christian fundies don't like the Catholics. Also, Rick Santorum is damaged goods that was defeated by 18% when he lost his bid for a 3rd term. That is embarrassing for a 2 term Senator.
I realize this, but ideology wise, he seems to be a page out of the social conservative playbook. It hurts him among Protestants that he is Catholic, but at the same time, he might be able to snag some independent Catholics... I think I read out of all the Christian denominations, Catholics are the most left leaning.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 36437 posts, RR: 86 Reply 11, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 417 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10): I believe Gary Johnson endorsed Paul, and I think Johnson isn't going to run if Paul wins the nomination. I like both of them and am 90% sure I'm going to vote for one or another. In the Ron Paul circles I'm involved with, many are ready to give Johnson support if Paul doesn't run.
I think Gary Johnson would have a lot more potential to explain has support. Ron Paul has a lot of support but I don't think he could expand his base. Who knows?
Ron Paul has had the luxury of representing a safe gerrymandered district his entire political career. It's really had to say how many Democrats and independents he would attract. Gary Johnson on the other hand has represented an entire state for 2 terms. A Democratic leaning swing state with many Latino voters - a very important voting block.
Gary Johnson is also younger and a better speaker than Ron Paul.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10): I can only dream of a Johnson/Paul Libertarian ticket.
My dream ticket would be Trump/Johnson. They could be Republican or Democrat, I really don't care.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 12, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 413 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 11): Ron Paul has had the luxury of representing a safe gerrymandered district his entire political career.
It may appear that way, I wouldn't necessarily say that unless you got a good source
He's a good Republican. Many (maybe even most) republicans have little problem with Paul minus his foreign policy, which as a single Congressman, doesn't come into play too much.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 11): Gary Johnson is also younger and a better speaker than Ron Paul.
I think you hit it on the head. I like Paul and he is very consistent. I agree mostly with his views, but Johnson, I daresay, has a more realistic version of Paul's views. One that the American people would take to better, I'm pretty sure of.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 11): My dream ticket would be Trump/Johnson.
Ehh... I don't know. And by now, Trump has had a few embarrassing moments that really hurt his election chances. Right now, a "rich guy" isn't really the top choice of many Americans.
Quoting Superfly (Reply 11): They could be Republican or Democrat, I really don't care.
I'm not sure if you are aware, but Johnson is pursuing the Libertarian ticket (actually confirmed, it's even on his website.) He'll probably get the Libertarian nomination. So who knows, maybe he'll gain momentum this go around. If Paul goes 3rd party, it'll hurt Johnson a lot. If Paul endorses Johnson, it will help him greatly, and even if Paul doesn't endorse anyone, most Paul supporters aren't sheep (IMO) and will go to him anyway. I hear it all the time among Paul supporters that Johnson is their #2 guy, just as many Johnson supporters voted for Paul in the GOP primaries when Johnson dropped out.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 36437 posts, RR: 86 Reply 13, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 403 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 12): It may appear that way, I wouldn't necessarily say that unless you got a good source
???
His district never came on the radar as a swing district and often won in landslides. You can go look that up yourself.
Paul was first elected in the 1970s and they left Congress in 1984. In 1996, he ran for Congress again. He defeated Congressman Greg Laughlin in the Congressional primary. Congressman Greg Laughlin had been a conservative Democrat that switched parties after the Republican takeover in 1994. He saw that his district was less likely to continue to vote for a Democrat so he switched parties. Then he was defeated by Ron Paul in the GOP primary of 1996. Since then, Ron Paul has always won easily.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 12): I don't know. And by now, Trump has had a few embarrassing moments that really hurt his election chances.
So has Obama and all other politicians. Keep in mind, the media has loved Donald Trump for decades but turned on him as soon as he started criticizing Obama. Therefore, they're gonna magnify any gaffe and look for any reason to rip the man apart.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 12): Right now, a "rich guy" isn't really the top choice of many Americans.
They're all rich!
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 12): I'm not sure if you are aware, but Johnson is pursuing the Libertarian ticket
I will not vote 3rd party unless we do away with a winner take all system.
On a related note, Rosanne Barr is running on the Green Party ticket.
Go get 'em Rosanne!
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 14050 posts, RR: 55 Reply 14, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 402 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 13): but turned on him as soon as he started criticizing Obama.
No, Sfly. The trouble was that he wasn't criticizing Obama. He was questioning the birth certificate until Obama finally threw up his hands and produced it.
If he'd stuck to Obama's policies, he wouldn't have looked like such an idiot.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 36437 posts, RR: 86 Reply 15, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 397 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14): No, Sfly. The trouble was that he wasn't criticizing Obama. He was questioning the birth certificate until Obama finally threw up his hands and produced it.
If he'd stuck to Obama's policies, he wouldn't have looked like such an idiot.
Yes & no.
Trump DID speak mostly about Obama's policies bu the press ignored it until Trump mentioned the birth certificate issue and THEN the press give him TONS of attention and it wasn't good attention either.
I wish Trump stayed away from the birth certificate issue even though his questions were valid.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3061 posts, 
From Thailand, joined May 2000, 36437 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
