Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 19, 2014, 03:35:01 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83696 Posts in 2261 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  2012 Presidential
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 42 Print
Author Topic: 2012 Presidential  (Read 158513 times)
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2167


« Reply #1350 on: February 21, 2012, 10:14:51 AM »

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/20/some-republicans-whisper-about-a-plan-b/

Mesa, Arizona (CNN) - In a whispering campaign not ready to go public, some senior Republicans are so anxious about the state of the GOP race they are actually considering the unheard of: a scenario that would lead to another candidate entering the Republican primary race, and potentially an open convention.

They are not unhappy enough, however, to go on the record calling for another candidate to enter the fray. In fact, when pressed, many Republicans say the chatter about another candidate is inevitable in this long and inconclusive primary process. They also say it's just not likely to happen.

Why?

"If you bring somebody new into the race, that person will lose," said a senior GOP strategist who admits a bias towards Romney. "The party - especially conservatives - will not respond to somebody who has not gone through the process."

That being said, it's clear Rick Santorum's recent rise in the polls - and what some see as his electability problems - has struck a nerve with Republicans.

"There is something called agenda control," said one unaffiliated GOP strategist. "Santorum does not have it. Instead of talking about the economy, he's been going down rabbit holes for the last four or five days."

Santorum's emphasis on cultural issues may intensify his conservative and evangelical support and help him win the nomination or at least differentiate himself from Newt Gingrich. The fear is he may also be narrowing his support in a general election population.

And Santorum's surging candidacy is not the only concern for senior Republicans. Mitt Romney's inability to close the deal has also raised eyebrows - and angst. And the anxiety will only intensify should Romney lose his home state of Michigan in the primary on February 28, several senior Republicans told CNN.

"Michigan is the whole shooting match," said one senior GOP strategist not aligned with a campaign. Says another: "If Romney loses Michigan, all hell breaks loose."

Given that real possibility, one knowledgeable GOP source confirms that some Republicans are circulating the deadlines and the basic math that would allow another candidate to get into the nomination fight and take it all the way to the convention. More than a half dozen states' filing deadlines have yet to pass. A majority of the delegates to the national convention are still up for grabs. One more factor to be considered: many states are choosing their delegates proportionally, which makes it easier for a candidate pick up delegates without outright winning a state.

Politico first reported the existence of a document circulating among Republicans.

Santorum's highlighting of cultural issues could play well for him in the short-term. But the worry among Republicans is that his views will raise the question of his electability. "After a while, Republican voters will start asking whether this is the guy to take on Obama," says one GOP strategist. In addition to the fear of a potential loss to Obama, some Republicans worry about losing the House of Representatives if Santorum were at the top of the ticket.

“There is no faith he would bring independent or moderate voters. If he does well on Super Tuesday you’ll have serious people talking about convention strategies etc,” one Republican congressional leadership aide told CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash.

"Santorum would so alienate voters, especially women…he would be lucky to carry a dozen states," one senior Republican told CNN, referring to Santorum's disapproval of pre-natal screening.

Santorum's campaign disagrees. It considers him a strong social conservative who is the best equipped to take on President Obama on the economic issues – -particularly in the rustbelt states. "He won in Pennsylvania, which has both Democrats and women the last time I checked," says a senior Santorum adviser, who calls his boss a "full spectrum conservative."

One of the Republicans who has seen the memo said "no one is hoping that this will come to play," regarding a new candidate entering the fray. Yet some Republican partisans feel they need to make some contingency plans depending on the outcome in coming primaries. Other veteran Republicans contacted by CNN dismissed any possibility of another candidate entering the contest at this date.

There are no names of possible candidates mentioned in the memo. Who would the Republicans possibly turn to? The usual suspects include Sarah Palin, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. They could still enter the race although they all have repeatedly said they will not mount a campaign despite new inquiries by some in the party.

"I really would not be interested," Daniels told CNN affiliate WISH Monday. "If we get to that point, I would be interested in finding someone who can present a really credible and winning alternative to where the nation is going right now. I still think it's very unlikely. These things have a way of resolving themselves."

For its part the Republican National Committee is downplaying the prospects of another contender entering the fray.

“We are four games into what is a 54 game league and people are trying to pick the equivalent of a super bowl or a world series. We have 4 great candidates. I’m confident one of them will be our nominee and will go on to be successful in November,” RNC Spokesman Sean Spicer said.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1351 on: February 21, 2012, 02:27:36 PM »

"Michigan is the whole shooting match," said one senior GOP strategist not aligned with a campaign. Says another: "If Romney loses Michigan, all hell breaks loose."

If Santorum wins, he is the sustained frontrunner; he is the already the leader at this point.  Feb 28 is the turning point either way for Romney.  Michigan is a primary not a caucus state and the other side is uncontested so anyone eligible to vote and willing to show up and say they are Republican will get a ballot.  In Feb 2000, moderates showed up for McCain.

Only one debate (tomorrow, Mesa AZ, CNN) before the vote.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1352 on: February 23, 2012, 10:18:02 AM »

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/transcript-tonights-cnn-republican-debate-arizona_631777.html

I read the transcript this morning, did not see the debate.  In general I would say each got to clarify his positions somewhat and no new ground was really broken.  All 4 seem a little more cautious about practicing scorched earth politics as they each now trail the failed President in the polls.  All 3 (except Ron Paul) seem to be in pretty close agreement over foreign policy.

The earmark discussion was interesting.  When funds are not earmarked by congress all goes to the executive branch.  The real question was how all these things get lumped on to other bills and how the line item veto that would solve this was struck down by the court.
----
Adding a comment, Santorum's defense of endorsing Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey was that Specter was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and promised Santorum he would move the President's conservative Supreme Court picks through a 51-49 senate where the 51 included some very Democrat-like moderates.

Romney answered one charge against Romneycare from Santorum, that Santrum had endorsed him as a good conservative in 2008 - well after Romneycare.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 10:57:19 AM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #1353 on: February 23, 2012, 12:39:30 PM »

I did watch it and thought Newt, returning to his pre-FL persona, did well, but his demogoging MR on Bain may well have done him in for good-- unless Addelson ponies up some seriously big bucks?  Santorum would have done well to emphasize economics more.  I suspect his way of making his social issues points is burning bridges with many independents and many women.  MR is burning cash fast and heavily outspending his opposition is the MO of his campaign. RP is now #2 in delegates?

I saw a poll which had each of the 4 about 10 points down against His Glibness.

This begins to look like looking up to see an atom bomb falling.  You know its falling, you just don't have enough time to get out of its way , , ,
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #1354 on: February 23, 2012, 01:51:45 PM »

Crafty,

Take heart from this poll just off drudge.  Like DMG pointed out, its way to early:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/212225-gallup-romney-leads-obama-by-four-points
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1355 on: February 23, 2012, 02:44:12 PM »

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203918304577239092290860440.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Romney's Tax Reboot
His 20% marginal rate cut changes the tax reform debate.

One oddity of this Republican Presidential primary season is that front-runner Mitt Romney has had by far the least inspiring tax plan. That changed yesterday when the former Massachusetts Governor took a dive into the deep end of the tax reform debate with a proposal that includes a 20% across-the-board cut in income tax rates. Now we're getting somewhere.

The rate cut follows the Reagan formula of applying to anyone who pays income taxes. The current 35% tax rate (set to rise to 41% in 2013 including deduction and exemption phase-outs) would fall to 28%, the 33% rate to 26.4%, the 28% rate to 22.4%, the 25% rate to 20%, the 15% rate to 12%, and the 10% rate to 8%.
***

As an economic matter, this is the most effective kind of tax cut because it applies at the margin, meaning the next dollar of income earned. A mountain of economic research shows that a marginal-rate cut does far more than tax holidays or targeted tax credits to change the incentives to invest and hire workers, and thus provides the most economic lift.

The proposal from Mitt Romney, above, provides a tax contrast with Rick Santorum.

This is especially true because the vast majority of businesses in America today aren't corporations. They're sole proprietorships, partnerships or Subchapter S firms whose profits are "passed through," as the jargon goes, to the owners and are taxed at the individual rate. These noncorporate firms account for over half of all business income, according to IRS data. By lowering their taxes and making the rates permanent, Mr. Romney's plan would do much to make the U.S. more job and investment friendly.

By contrast, President Obama's proposal yesterday (see below) to cut the corporate rate to 28% from 35% wouldn't apply to this "pass-through" business income. It would thus favor big corporations at the expense of smaller businesses that file as individuals and would see their marginal rate rise to 41% or more under Mr. Obama's plan to raise individual tax rates.

Mr. Romney has already proposed a cut in the corporate tax rate to 25% from 35%, and by adding the cut in the business pass-through rate to 28% he is proposing the more ambitious and far more economically potent reform.

The Obama campaign will attack his plan as favoring the rich, but it would do so even if Mr. Romney proposed no tax cut. Now Mr. Romney will have a better response because in return for cutting rates he says he would also close loopholes and deductions that have become shelters from high tax rates.

Mr. Romney made the mistake yesterday of distinguishing between deductions for "middle-income families," which he said would be preserved, and for the "top 1%," which he said would be on the table. This sounds like a pollster's bad advice. It merely plays into Mr. Obama's class-war theme when Mr. Romney should be stressing growth. But at least Mr. Romney says all deductions would be on the reform table, including those for mortgage interest, state and local taxes and health care.

The Romney campaign is also shrewd to say it will assume some dynamic revenue feedback from his marginal-rate cuts. This does not mean that the tax cuts will entirely "pay for themselves" right away. It does mean that it can safely assume that his proposal would recapture about one-third of the revenue loss from the rate reductions through more investment and economic growth.

That's a defensible and conservative estimate based on historical experience with rate reductions. Tax revenues soared after the Reagan 1981 tax cuts (the Gipper cut rates across the board by 25%) and the Bush 2003 rate reductions. The 2003 investment tax cut was expected to lose revenue, but the gain in jobs and business activity produced $786 billion more in revenue from 2003-2007.
Related Video

Editorial board member Steve Moore breaks down Mitt Romney's and President Obama's tax plans.

Economists Greg Mankiw and Glenn Hubbard, who are both advising Mr. Romney, have done studies documenting the feedback effects of marginal-rate tax cuts. So has Harvard's Martin Feldstein, among others.

All of this should also help Mr. Romney politically, if he makes the case well and with confidence. Conservative voters who have wondered if he is one of them can now see a tangible proposal that will be a governing priority, not merely a pledge to fight for reform some day. It gives him something to fight for beyond his business biography.

The Romney proposal will also provide a tax contrast with Rick Santorum. The Pennsylvania Senator favors a top tax rate of 28% but he also wants to triple the child tax credit to $3,000. He'd have a hard time credibly doing both without blowing up the budget because the tax credit has almost no revenue feedback effect. It's a social gesture with little or no impact on economic growth.

Meanwhile, on corporate taxes, Mr. Romney's tax cut applies to all companies equally. Mr. Santorum would cut the rate in half for most companies, except manufacturers would pay 0%. This is a form of industrial policy that would have every company lobbying to qualify as a manufacturer and would defeat the tax neutrality that is a main goal of tax reform.
***

Now that he has the right policy, Mr. Romney's main challenge will be selling it without apology. He has resisted tax cuts for individuals lest he be criticized for helping the rich, and he sometimes sounds guilty about his own wealth. But voters will sense if Mr. Romney doesn't believe what he says or if he shrinks from making a forthright case for it.

The only way to defeat Mr. Obama's politics of envy is with the politics of growth and rising opportunity. Voters don't really care about a candidate's wealth as long as they conclude he has a plan to increase theirs.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1356 on: February 23, 2012, 03:21:06 PM »

"RP is now #2 in delegates?"

Bringing the bulk of those supporters to support the eventual nominee will be quite a challenge; some will never do it.  I don't know if Ron Paul has endorsed any Republican candidates for the general election since Reagan.

RP is only growing stronger in his (anti-) foreign policy views. He talks about the number of US bases surrounding Iran, implying that their claim of needing the weapons for defense is real and saying that it is ridiculous for us to fear Iran having a few nukes.  The Soviets had 30,000 of them - no problem (except that we were about one election from having to all learn Russian.)  Paul is much more open to compromise on taxes and spending than foreign affairs.

Funny point in the debate transcript, the moderator asked the other 3 their view on Syria, then said (something like): moving on... Rep. Paul said - um, excuse me?  Moderator says 'okay, quickly'.  Paul said: I'll be quick - with a one minute response.  Perhaps the first time the moderator ever agreed with the rest of us: RP, we already know, without asking, your view on intervention in Syria. 
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #1357 on: February 26, 2012, 09:44:56 AM »

"With the Republican presidential nomination still up in the air, the possibility of a brokered convention is looking increasingly likely. Under the party’s rules, the delegates won by Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and the others in the primaries and caucuses are obligated to vote for their assigned candidate only on the first ballot. If no candidate wins the required number of votes, the delegates can throw their support to anyone. There’s speculation that party insiders, unhappy with the current field, might float the candidacy of someone not now in the race, like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie or Jeb Bush."

Even Thomas is being talked about....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/26/clarence-thomas-is-a-long-shot-for-president-but-his-candidacy-makes-a-lot-of-sense.html
« Last Edit: February 26, 2012, 09:46:51 AM by JDN » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #1358 on: February 26, 2012, 12:19:24 PM »

"Yes, it is hard to believe that Clarence Thomas would ever be the Republican nominee. Then again, most people thought an inexperienced African-American often mistaken for a Muslim could never defeat presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton, much less be elected president"

Yes but the huge difference one is a politician and the other has never run for office or given any indication he could have any talent to do that.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2167


« Reply #1359 on: February 27, 2012, 05:29:20 AM »

This, primarily, focuses on the GOP presidential hopefuls.  It is a good discussion about the importance of the electoral organization, not just the "attractiveness" of a candidate.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_99/Presidential-Primary-Has-GOP-Nervous-212616-1.html?ET=rollcall:e12301:80133681a:&st=email&pos=epol
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #1360 on: February 27, 2012, 11:14:22 AM »

Politico headlines Obama approval at 53% and kicking the behinds of all Republican comers.

Rasmussen on Drudge has hime losing to most Repubs and getting less than I think 45%.

I suspect Rasmussen is closer to the truth. 

To me Brock is getting more and more desperate.

We heard "class" card now "race" card on Drudge.  These are desperation moves IMO.

Anyone want to wager that once Romney gets the nomination and he gets to focus he will win in November?

I'll make that bet now.  How about the cost of one postage stamp?
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2167


« Reply #1361 on: February 27, 2012, 12:06:09 PM »

Rasmussen says that both Romney and Paul are leading Obama for the first time.

This is NOT what they report, however.  What they report, below all the headlines, is that "The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence."  This means a statistical tie.



Politico headlines Obama approval at 53% and kicking the behinds of all Republican comers.

Rasmussen on Drudge has hime losing to most Repubs and getting less than I think 45%.

I suspect Rasmussen is closer to the truth. 

To me Brock is getting more and more desperate.

We heard "class" card now "race" card on Drudge.  These are desperation moves IMO.

Anyone want to wager that once Romney gets the nomination and he gets to focus he will win in November?

I'll make that bet now.  How about the cost of one postage stamp?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #1362 on: February 27, 2012, 01:47:20 PM »


what is your analysis of the politico report?
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2167


« Reply #1363 on: February 27, 2012, 07:37:12 PM »

I would guess one of three things:
1.  Question wording.
2.  One of the two polls happens to be outside of the confidence interval.
3.  The universe from which the respondents were selected.  For example, I will admit to looking at either since reading it originally, I think the Politico poll was taken from battleground states, or at least it was advertised that way.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #1364 on: February 29, 2012, 08:45:25 PM »

MICHIGAN DEMS POWER SANTORUM
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on February 29, 2012

Printer-Friendly Version
Did Romney eek out a victory in Michigan?  No.  He actually won by a hefty margin.  Did he lose blue collar voters, showing weakness in that key sector?  No.  He carried them quite nicely.
 
So why don't the results reflect this?  Because the primary was invaded by Democrats who largely voted for Santorum.  Had the Democrats not done so, Romney would not have won a narrow 3 point victory in Michigan but would be celebrating a 7 point comfortable victory.
 
According to the Fox News exit polls, 9 percent of the 1.1 million votes cast in the primary were by Democrats who voted for Santorum over Romney by 53-18.  17 percent of these would-be spoilers voted for Paul and 3 percent backed Gingrich.  The remainder voted for Obama or an uncommitted slate in the Democratic primary where they belonged.
 
Had these Democrats not cast ballots in the Republican primary for Santorum, Romney would have been hailed as the easy winner last night.
 
We have to give Romney credit for an overwhelming win in Arizona and a significant sized victory in Michigan in view of these results.  But, more importantly, we have to ask why these Democrats voted for Santorum.
 
Some of these Santorum voters were possibly pro-life Democrats who crossed party lines because they feared that Romney might go back to his pro-choice ways.  But this was a most unusually large Democratic turnout when their own party did not have a contest. (Witness that 90% of the Democrats who participated voted in the Republican primary).
 
The turnout was, undoubtedly, deliberately orchestrated by the unions and the formidable Michigan Democratic organization in the hopes of nominating Santorum and upending Romney in his home state.  It takes quite a bit of effort to turn out 100,000 Democrats to vote in the Republican primary.  Why were the Democrats so intent on beating Romney and helping Santorum?
 
Rightly or wrongly, they - and the Obama high command - must believe that Romney would be the tougher candidate to beat in November. 
 
The opposition has clearly and unambiguously endorsed Santorum and indicated its fear of Romney.
 
Shouldn't we listen to them?  Isn't it important to take account of which candidate the opposition fears?  Do we want to give them a Republican nominee they feel they can defeat or one of whom they are afraid?
 
Obviously, the Democratic chieftains believe that Santorum's position on social issues will give Obama plenty to run against in a general election.  His opposition to contraception (although he does not want to make it illegal) and to amniocentesis (which he says leads to abortion) would make inviting targets for negative ads in the general election.
 
The Democrats want to run against Santorum.
 
Who are we to second guess their judgment and give them what they want?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #1365 on: March 02, 2012, 09:42:53 AM »

George Will on Drudge is predicting Mitt can't win.  Repubs should be happy to win the house and try to get control of the Senate.

I predict otherwise.  Obama will lose and Mitt will win.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1366 on: March 05, 2012, 12:12:04 PM »

George Will on Drudge is predicting Mitt can't win.  Repubs should be happy to win the house and try to get control of the Senate.  I predict otherwise.  Obama will lose and Mitt will win.

Bill Krystal (famous people reading the forum) makes the point that this is the big one and we who care have to do everything we can to win it.  Will apparently is saying if the presidential is lost at least go out and win congress.  That is not enough.

2010 was quite an election for Republicans after the country got to know Obama, Pelosi and Obamacare.  Now there are five parts remaining; all are must-wins to save the republic: 1) Must win the Presidency, as Krystal points out, can't repeal Obamacare and the rest without the White House. 2) Hold the House. 3) Win the Senate, but that still is not 60 votes 4) Win the public - and that means not for the day on Nov 6 2012, but with mandate and like-minded thinking with force and leverage to get things done and repealed through a roadblocked Senate.  5) The Supreme Court.  As bigdog said (something like) it is not rule by the elites because we choose who nominates and confirms them.  So choose wisely!
----------------

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/will-s-wrong_633080.html

Will’s Wrong
12:05 PM, Mar 2, 2012 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL

The estimable George Will is almost ready to hoist the white flag on the 2012 presidential election. Neither Mitt Romney nor Rick Santorum, he writes in his column for this Sunday (an advance copy of which was obtained by Politico), “seems likely to be elected.” And while conservatives, Will advises, should vote for whichever is nominated, there may well “come a point when … conservatives turn their energies to a goal much more attainable than . . . electing Romney or Santorum president. It is the goal of retaining control of the House and winning control of the Senate. . . . [C]onservatives this year should have as their primary goal making sure Republicans wield all the gavels in Congress in 2013.”

After all, Will argues, if Republicans control Congress, “their committee majorities will serve as fine-mesh filters, removing President Obama’s initiatives from the stream of legislation. . . . [A] re-elected Obama — a lame duck at noon next Jan. 20 — would have a substantially reduced capacity to do harm.”

Rarely has an intelligent man been so wrong.

By every objective measure, the GOP has a reasonable chance to defeat President Obama—probably between 1-in-3 and 1-in-2. Given this opportunity, it would be crazy not to do everything one can to effectuate an outcome so devoutly to be desired. This doesn't mean falling in line early behind an inevitable nominee or suppressing criticism of the likely nominee. If some of us have tried to expand the presidential field, it's because we've been unconvinced that the current field offers us the best hope of victory. If some of us have resisted Romney inevitability, or an early Romney coronation, it's because we don't think that Romney's nomination—or at least his easy and early nomination—would increase Republican chances of winning the presidency. Others differ on these questions. But whatever differences conservatives have in March about candidates, strategy and tactics should not affect our determination in the fall, when there is a Republican nominee, to turn our energies to defeating President Obama.

Why? Obamacare. Iran. Debt. The military. The Court.

Obamacare can't be reversed from Congress. Iran can't be denied nuclear weapons by Congress. The debt crisis can't be fundamentally addressed by Congress. The military can't be protected from being hollowed out by Congress. Judges can't be appointed by Congress.

If you think the country's in decent shape, go for control of Congress. If you think it's the mid-1990s again, go for control of Congress. If you're fatalistic about American decline abroad and the end of limited, constitutional government at home, go for control of Congress. If current trends don't deeply alarm you, or if you think alarm is futile because the rot is too deep, the decline too long-standing, the problems too un-fixable—then, go for control of Congress. Try to limit the damage and slow the collapse.

But if you reject such fatalism as a failure of nerve, and such declinism as a failure of understanding—and conservatives should—then do everything you can to win the White House. Perhaps always, but certainly in 2012—there is no substitute for victory.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #1367 on: March 05, 2012, 02:17:00 PM »

THE DANGER OF DEADLOCK
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on March 5, 2012

Printer-Friendly Version
If Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich split the remaining primaries and caucuses - even if Romney wins most of them - we will not have a nominee until the summer and may not have one until the convention in late August.
 
In that case, kiss our chances of beating Obama good-bye!
 
With a majority of the delegates to be chosen through proportional representation, Romney would have to win virtually all of the winner-take-all states and do well in the others to get the nomination before the convention in late, late, late August.
 
If Santorum or Gingrich upend Mitt in even a handful of key states, we will have a deadlock.
 
Here's how it stacks up.
 
•  Let's assume the best case for Romney: He wins these winner-take-all states: ND (28 delegates), Vt (17), Virgin Islands (9), Guam (9), Puerto Rico (23), Illinois (69), DC (19), Md (37), Wisc (42), Ct (28), Del (17), RI (19), Ind (46), WV (31), Neb (35) losing only Pa (72) to Santorum and Ga (76) and NC (55) to Gingrich.
•  And then assume that Romney "wins" these proportional representation states but has to split the vote with the other three candidates: Alaska (27), Idaho (32), Mass (41), Ohio (66), Va (49), Wyo (29), Kan (40), Haw (20), NY (95), Me (24), Ore (28), Ky (45).  Assume that Romney "loses" these proportional representation states but still gets his share of the delegates: loses to Newt: Ark (36), Alab (50), Miss (40), La (46).  Loses to Santorum: Okla (43), Tenn (58), Col (26), Minn (40), Mo (52).
 
Then, in that case, here's how the delegate total would stack up on May 22nd:
 
Romney     = 837 
Santorum  = 332 
Gingrich     = 336
Paul           = 127
 
With 1,144 needed to nominate a candidate.  We would be well into May without a nominee.
 
•  Then, let's assume that Santorum and Gingrich win Texas (155 by proportional representation) but Romney gets his proportional share (a third of Texas' delegates are chosen on winner take all. Assume Newt wins them).  Then assume Romney and Santorum split Iowa (28) and Mitt wins the proportional representation battle in Washington State (43).  Still, no majority for anyone.
 
It would not be until June 5th that a nominee would emerge if Romney wins the winner-take-all states of California (172), Mont (25) NJ (50), SD (28), and Utah (40) and won the proportional state of NM (23).  At that point, Romney would have 1,250 delegates, about a hundred more than he would need for a majority.
 
Waiting until June 5th for a nominee against an incumbent president is an unacceptable risk.
 
But what if Romney loses just a handful of these states?  It would throw the convention into deadlock.  Nobody would have a first ballot majority and this internecine warfare would drag on until the convention itself.
 
If we are to avoid a deadlock, we have to hope one candidate or another wins them all.  And that probably, at this stage, means Romney.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #1368 on: March 06, 2012, 09:13:45 AM »

I never thought of this.  It might pick off a few Jewish and perhaps Southern voters (Virginia where Obamster is reportedly ahead of all Repub candidates).  I don't know how much appeal Cantor has otherwise though with say the independents who are more important to victory (In my amateurish opinion).  And certainly Latinos are comprising an ever expanding block of potentially "swing" voters.   Far greater numbers than Jewish voters.  I wouldn't think Latinos are particularly interested in Israel.

****..Look for a Romney-Cantor GOP Ticket
..By Professor John A. Tures, LaGrange College
 .PostsWebsite .By Professor John A. Tures, LaGrange College
COMMENTARY | Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor picked Mitt Romney over the weekend . In a few months, Romney will return the favor by picking Cantor as his running mate for the 2012 election. It's all part of a critical election strategy the Republicans hope to ride to the White House.

Critical elections have been identified by political scientists. These are "game changer" elections where one group switches sides. The new party, infused with the new support, wins the overwhelming majority of subsequent elections. In 1932, blacks shifted from the Republicans to Franklin Roosevelt, enabling the Democrats to win the majority of the elections until 1968. That year, Southern whites shifted from Democrats to the GOP, enabling Republicans to win so many elections by landslides until 1992.

Republicans have been looking for a similar "critical election" to go back to winning elections big. They thought they had it with Sarah Palin, but she didn't win over the female vote. But could Eric Cantor capture the Jewish vote for the GOP? Here's how it would work.

Winning The Jewish Vote: Barack Obama won 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008. It was the third highest total for a Democrat since 1972. Only Bill Clinton in 1992 and Al Gore in 2000 (with Joe Lieberman) won more, so the GOP has its work cut out for it. Cantor might help.

Solidifying The Religious Vote: Jews made up only 2 percent of the vote in 2008. But what if the goal wasn't just Jews but firing up Christians desperate to "protect the Holy Land" against Iran by picking a Jewish congressman?

Avoiding Charges Of Bigotry: The mudslinging is likely to get ugly in 2012. Picking a Jewish congressman (coupled with his own faith) could insulate Romney from such charges.

Appealing to Southerners: Cantor is from a region where Romney doesn't poll particularly well. Obama took Virginia, Cantor's home state (along with Florida and North Carolina). It will be impossible for the GOP to do well without retaking these Southern states.

Providing an Ideological Balance: Cantor is seen as more conservative, inoculating Romney against charges he's a moderate. Cantor is credited with pushing House Speaker John Boehner to the right during the debt ceiling debate.

Getting a Young Running Mate: If Romney wins and is re-elected, Republicans will want someone young enough to run in eight years as the standard bearer and avoid the messy primaries of this year. Cantor said he's "not open" to being a vice president, but that might change by this summer.

....@yahoonews on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook ..****
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1369 on: March 06, 2012, 10:29:03 AM »

CCP, I agree with you about Eric Cantor, not that he will be VP but that he will be in serious consideration.  Everybody's first pick seems to be Marco Rubio but that is far from certain.  I don't think being a Jewish will matter, but is historic if he becomes President.

'Balancing' a ticket is not always the best strategy; it did not work with Bob Dole picking Jack Kemp or John McCain picking Sarah Palin.  Palin wasn't fully ready and Kemp choked I think because he was uncomfortable answering for the views and record of his running mate. 

If we eliminate Speaker Boehner from consideration, Cantor is the highest ranking member of his party currently in power.  Even then, he is a complete unknown across the country, see below.  I find him to be thoughtful and articulate but we never know how people rise to that kind of challenge.  Putting him on the ballot would also put the record of action of the Republican House on the table for discussion, right while Pres. Obama is trying to blame a do-nothing congress.

The only Eric Cantor national approval ratings I could find:

CNN/ORC Poll. July 18-20, 2011. N=1,009 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
Favorable  18
Unfavorable  21
Never heard of  46
Unsure   15
      
Pretty much meaningless numbers, a somewhat fresh face with good experience, but from a congress with 80+% overall disapproval.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #1370 on: March 06, 2012, 11:10:54 AM »

"Putting him on the ballot would also put the record of action of the Republican House on the table for discussion, right while Pres. Obama is trying to blame a do-nothing congress."

Good point.  I think he was on 60 minutes and the MSM program kindof already went after him on this from what I recall.   
You know the why is Congress' approval at an all time low.  I don't recall them ever asking Democrats this.

There was certainly no adoration like there is of Obama.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1371 on: March 06, 2012, 11:29:17 AM »

"You know the why is Congress' approval at an all time low.  I don't recall them ever asking Democrats this."

If you favor either the R. agenda coming out of the House and lost in the Senate, or the Harry Reid Obama agenda with no chance of passing in the House, you disapprove of the performance in congress.  Independents hate partisan bickering so that makes all three groups in disapproval of divided government.

Instead of arguing forever it would be nice if one side or the other would win the argument.  Dems won the elections of 2006-2008 but not on a clear agenda (hope/change and we are not Geo. Bush).  That is the challenge for Romney now.  He needs to be clear about vision with all its details and win.  Sneaking out a win, even a sweep of the Presidency, House and Senate is not enough.  He needs clear and specific support of the people on the critical items of the agenda.

It was Tip O'Neill's House that passed the Reagan tax cuts against the leadership of the house.  Sure they screwed it up in delays and compromises but they got it done:

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/30/politics/30REAG.html?pagewanted=all

Reagan’s 3-Year, 25% Cut in Tax Rate Voted by Wide Margins in the House and Senate
By EDWARD COWAN
Published: July 30, 1981

In a decisive victory for President Reagan, the House of Representatives today approved the Administration's tax cut bill.

The measure provides for three years of reductions totalling 25 percent in individual tax rates and major reductions in taxes paid by business and by oil producers.

The key vote, 238 to 195, gave Mr. Reagan a third upset victory over the Democratic House majority on fiscal issues. The President won by virtue of the same coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats that brought him victory in May on the budget resolution and in June on the budget reconciliation bill.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2012, 01:22:42 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #1372 on: March 06, 2012, 03:38:10 PM »

The politics of it are interesting and I had hopes for Cantor as a voice for our cause, but I have been sorely disappointed in several interviews I have seen of him in recent months.  He sounded far too "inside baseball" and sounded like he was being coopted by the process.

BTW, I see Romney is polling with 78% of the Latino vote negative for him.  Santorum's performance in the FL debates seemed very strong to me re Latin American issues and could enable him to get favorable Latino attention on issues other than immigration.  Newt's play, but supporting amnesty for grandma's who have been here a long time seems not to have been noticed.  His numbers were even worse than Romney's.

Returning to the Jewish vote AND matters of SERIOUS import, here is Dick Morris, venturing well outside his lane as is often his wont  wink

NETANYAHU CONTROLS OBAMA'S FATE
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on March 6, 2012

Printer-Friendly Version
If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to seal President Obama's fate, all he has to do is to attack Iran.  It is clear from Obama's AIPAC speech that the president will continue to talk about diplomacy and sanctions for the remainder of his term and will take no military action against Iran.  If Israel attacks Iran, she will achieve three things:
 
a.  Israel will buy time by delaying the Iranian nuclear program by one to three years.
 

b.  Those extra years will give the effective sanctions, only now being imposed, time to work.

c.  The resulting increase in the price of oil - and its impact on the American economy - will doom Obama's re-election chances, assuring that a pro-Israeli Republican Administration takes power.
 
With a Republican in the White House and in control of Congress, Israel will be well positioned to derail permanently the Iranian nuclear program.
 
Obama could never recover from the run-up of oil prices that would follow an Israeli attack.  His refusal to approve the Keystone Pipeline, to drill in the ANWR reserve, and to issue permits for deep sea drilling, all make him ultra-vulnerable on the gas price issue.  He has no good answers on the subject.
 
A huge increase in gas prices at the pump will also send the world into the same kind of oil shock as happened in 1973 and 1979, each of which was followed by a global recession in reaction.  Obama would not be able to be re-elected amid the tidal wave of bad economic news he would face.
 
How ironic that Netanyahu, therefore, really controls Obama's fate.  He can't re-elect his sworn enemy (I doubt anyone can do that) but he can defeat him and likely will do so.
 
Netanyahu has to face the fundamental fact that Israel cannot survive another four years of an Obama presidency.  Freed of the constraints that the need to get re-elected imposes, the president's anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian bias will come out in virulent form with likely lethal implications for Israel.  If Bibi lets Obama get re-elected, he will be dooming the Jewish State to extinction. 
 
All the evidence indicates that he understands his choices and will respond accordingly.  At least we hope so.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1373 on: March 06, 2012, 04:58:56 PM »

"I had hopes for Cantor as a voice for our cause, but I have been sorely disappointed in several interviews I have seen of him in recent months.  He sounded far too "inside baseball" and sounded like he was being coopted by the process."

I can't remember when I had seen him but I think I had a similar reaction.  Rubio has sight of the big picture and articulates it best.  It is hard to say which of the inside guys who know the legislation like Ryan or Cantor will be able to communicate big picture best with America if Rubio should either slip or decline the job.  BTW Santarum fell far too far into that inside game in the last debate as well.  Title XX? I was reading the debate and didn't know how to pronounce it.  How many know viewers what it is and whether it is good or bad.  This is a big picture / directional election.  What did Rubio say - if it doesn't help create jobs, I'm not supporting it.

Yes Morris is out of his element as we all are without actual intelligence briefings, but what he says makes sense.  Bombing the reactor site has risks and retaliations associated with it and may only set Iran back a couple of years.  Not disrupting this project and having Pakistan / AQ AND Iran all nuclear is unthinkable.

Another war I heard is that in times of war incumbents are reelected (ex: FDR, a failed economic President).  Obama may want the war.

Of course this is all cynical; they are really only thinking of the best interests of our nation.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


WSJ
« Reply #1374 on: March 07, 2012, 10:17:45 AM »

If Republican poohbahs were hoping that Super Tuesday's 10 contests would settle the Republican primary contest, they woke up Wednesday disappointed. While Mitt Romney had a good night and stretched his lead among delegates, Rick Santorum did well enough to more than justify staying in the race.

The good news for Mr. Romney is that he won easily where he had to—in New England and Virginia—and went on to win narrowly the crucial showdown in Ohio. The pundits made much of the large vote for Ron Paul in Vermont and Virginia, which was no doubt a protest vote against Mr. Romney or the entire field. But the former Massachusetts Governor still gathered most of the delegates and it appeared more than 40 of 49 delegates in Virginia.

In Ohio, Mr. Romney did well with what is becoming a familiar coalition: party regulars, college grads and those making more than $100,000 a year, voters who think the economy is the most important issue, and those who think he has the best chance of defeating President Obama.

It's clear that most tea partiers and the most conservative voters still prefer another candidate, but Mr. Romney won enough of them to prevail. His pro-growth 20% tax cut and tax reform outline, unveiled before Michigan, have been important to winning over conservative skeptics who favor substance over biography. Two weeks ago he was trailing Mr. Santorum badly in Ohio, and exit polls showed Mr. Romney picking up the bulk of those who decided in the last week.

Yet Mr. Santorum also did well in Ohio because he continues to carve out pluralities among tea party supporters, cultural conservatives, younger voters, and those who didn't attend college and aren't affluent. Partly this is the result of Mr. Santorum actively targeting these voters as a kindred spirit who understands their pain and values, but it also reflects Mr. Romney's weakness among the populist precincts of the GOP.

Enlarge Image

CloseAgence France-Presse/Getty Images
 
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney attends a Super Tuesday Republican primary elections evening in Boston.
.The same conservative doubts plagued Mr. Romney in Oklahoma, and especially Tennessee, where he made large media buys in the last week. Mr. Santorum won both and North Dakota.

Mr. Santorum is also scoring on the stump with his warnings about the threat to freedom posed by ObamaCare. Especially if the economy improves, this will be a crucial issue for Republicans in November because it reflects the great American fault line over the role of government. Yet the issue has bedeviled Mr. Romney's because of his refusal to distance himself from RomneyCare in Massachusetts and to say more than his cursory line that he'll "repeal ObamaCare."

Mr. Santorum hit health care hard in his remarks on Tuesday night, claiming Mr. Romney favored an individual mandate imposed from Washington even as recently as the 2009-2010 ObamaCare debate. We've long thought RomneyCare was the former Governor's great vulnerability, and he would be wise to come up with a better explanation for how his views differ from Mr. Obama's. Voters want to hear him do what Mr. Santorum does and take ObamaCare apart as policy and philosophy.

As for Newt Gingrich, he says his win in Georgia means he can fight another day. But he showed little strength anywhere else, and his overriding problem is his negative image even among Republicans. In Ohio's exit poll, 48% said they'd be dissatisfied if he were the GOP nominee. That's not an argument for electability.

His speech Tuesday night also betrayed his familiar ill-discipline as he rambled on with a history of the 2012 campaign from Iowa to Georgia. He'll have to defeat Mr. Santorum soon in more states than Georgia and outside of the South to claim to be the main alternative to Mr. Romney.

Republican elites are aching to declare this race over and take aim at Mr. Obama. The fear is that the intraparty debate is hurting the GOP brand and the image of the candidates. Some of that is inevitable in any primary campaign, but November is a long way off and the American public hasn't concluded that Mr. Obama deserves another term.

The hand-wringing is fruitless in any case. The voters are in charge and their split decision shows that Republicans still haven't settled on a standard-bearer.

============
I would add that Santorum really does not have much to say on the economy.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1375 on: March 07, 2012, 10:52:59 AM »

Strange to me that the media line (other than that WSJ piece) while Romney wins 6 more states is how Romney can't close it out.  No offense to the others, but really it was Tim Pawlenty who couldn't close it out, and Rick Perry and Hermann Cain and Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, not to mention the crowd on the sidelines who didn't find the gumption to jump in at all, Christie, Daniels, Jeb Bush, Palin et al.

Did someone say winning the Presidency was supposed to be easy?

True it was a brutal campaign.  And through it we learned that Mitt Romney was... faithful to his wife, successful and clean as a whistle in business, paid his taxes, gained executive experience in government, built the best organization, raised the most money, performed solid and consistent in the debates (biggest slipup was the $10,000 bet), is positioned as strong on defense, strong on border security, has a 20% across the board tax rate cut proposal (Reagan only got 25% through), and is not conservative enough for the farthest right elements in his own party.  He has won in the east, the west, the south (FL) and the midwest.  How could anyone position himself better for a general election?

Mitt Romney in 2012 is a far better candidate than John McCain of 2008 who only lost by 7 points to a magical figure who now must run on a record of cluelessness, damage and drift.

Santorum won 3 states that are safe for any Republican in Nov and Newt won his home state decisively.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #1376 on: March 07, 2012, 11:00:36 AM »

Doug:

That is very well reasoned and well written.

I would add that:

a) were the opposition to Romney not divided, he would be losing;
b) he lacks the ability to go after Obamacare;
c) his wins have come by outspending his opponents-- he will not have this advantage against Baraq, quite the contrary;
d) he has patrician's guilt complex and will crumple under race baiting and class warfare attacks
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1377 on: March 07, 2012, 12:17:45 PM »

I agree with you on his weaknesses.

"a) were the opposition to Romney not divided, he would be losing;"

But he has multiple opponents now because none of them seal the deal either.  Each had an opportunity.

"b) he lacks the ability to go after Obamacare"

He is poorly positioned to make the argument but his promise to repeal it is in stark contrast to Obama's position.  I don't see exactly how you repeal it or pass anything else when even in a perfect electoral storm they will still lack 60 votes in the Senate.

"c) his wins have come by outspending his opponents-- he will not have this advantage against Baraq, quite the contrary;"

This is true, but in the debates I think he was attacked the most and also super-pacs of the others mostly went after him.  He will have no money advantage against Obama, but no shortage of money either.

"d) he has patrician's guilt complex and will crumple under race baiting and class warfare attacks"

Agree on the first part. 

Romney is conceding that high income earners will see their deductions limited (something to appease the fairness/income inequality argument with), but went on to rather courageously cut their marginal tax rates by the same 20% as all other groups.  He wants to 'preserve the progressivity' in the current tax code, which is bad but the only alternative remaining will be to exacerbate it.  I have seen him Romney change course, but I have not seen him crumble - if that makes any sense.

We are not in the brainstorming time of a year or two ago trying to figure out who could make the perfect President.  The selection process for Republicans is largely over unless something very new develops.  The main alternative still standing, Santorum, isn't the right guy either.  So we are down to electing Romney and trying to shape the actual policies through the congressional elections, or losing our country - that is my take.

Earlier when Newt was being ignored, the tea party bet the farm on Hermann Cain.  I still wonder who it should have been.  Perry, I had hoped - not ready, not the right guy.  Very few are ready. Too bad it isn't Newt making his surge now - without errors!  Almost none have clarity, vision and discipline.  Newt had maybe 2 of those 3.  Romney, who knows.  He has the positioning to win. The hope that he can rise up out of this, win, and be a great President is all I think we have left.

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4212


« Reply #1378 on: March 07, 2012, 12:31:55 PM »

I've never seen the class envy game played up so much by the left wing media.  That's says THEY are desperate.

Yesterday some cable heads were mocking Mitt as "looking rich".

Well what does that mean?

Does he look different than John Kerry or Ted Kennedy or Kohl?

How about "broke" Nancy Pelosi?

I really don't recall any Republican candidate  going back to Ford when I was old enough to know who ever really sounded like a shoe in on the campaing trail.   Even Reagan was a question mark to some extent.  His best speeches were given after he was President.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1379 on: March 09, 2012, 11:57:25 PM »

CCP, For some reason there is a difference between a Republican looking rich and a Democrat looking rich.  Clinton, Obama, they call themselves fortunate.  Romney, to them, did it on the backs of the poor.

Santorum is less rich but wears sweater vests.  He made a living lobbying and in public office.  Gingrich, ditto.  Taught a college class, sold some books based on his experience and influence - like Clinton and Obama.  Made some money from Freddie Mac and spent it at Tiffanys.
------------------
Here is a negative piece on Romney in a conservative publication: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/mitt-romney-santorum-gingrich/2012/03/08/id/431848   He echoes some points Crafty made, outspending Santorum 12-1 in Ohio for example to get a one point win. 

Still I don't see the conclusion.  There is a bigger than ever race going on right now for leader of the free world and he is the only one winning.  Obama may win in the end but for now he hasn't run against anybody or won a contested vote.

"he's lost almost every Southern state"  - He won the important one, Florida, or is that the East?

"Romney has done really well in blue-state primaries. But Republicans won't win these states this November. Rollins adds that Romney loses badly in many red states — ones he must carry in November."  - The truly red states anyone not Obama will win.  It is the divided states that determine the election.  Losing badly in red states and the south?  He is in a virtual tie in Alabama and Mississippi.  That not bad for a 'Massachusetts moderate'.

The closing point is of much more concern: "The truth is that his policy advisers and campaign staff are filled with moderates who are out of step with the base of the Republican Party."  - That IS a problem, if true.  Yet he just came out with a 20% across the board marginal tax rate cut, is very strong on national security issues and to the right of Newt on border security and immigration reform.  Santorum voted to the left of Bill Clinton and Al Gore on NAFTA. 

The left, right, moderate model of politics is not very helpful with this Republican field.

P.S.  The loser so far is Ron Paul who was quite a force at the start and hasn't won a single state, even a caucus. 

The link again: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/mitt-romney-santorum-gingrich/2012/03/08/id/431848  and be sure to click on the ads.

Romney's Fuzzy Math for a Fuzzy Campaign

Thursday, 08 Mar 2012 10:00 PM

By Christopher Ruddy,  Newsmax

I am continually amazed how those at the Romney campaign continue to act victorious when they have such a poor case to make about cinching the nomination.  ...

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12168


« Reply #1380 on: March 10, 2012, 04:45:02 AM »

I'm no big fan of Mittens, but it's not about finding the perfect candidate to win the nomination, it's about preventing a catastrophic 2nd term of Buraq.

Mittens is the best shot at doing so.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #1381 on: March 11, 2012, 12:51:55 PM »

I'd like to comment on the role of Afpakia in the presidential campaign.

Most of us here have noted for several years now the incoherence of our Afpakia policy-- most certainly including the second Bush term.  Most of us here have already noted the inanity and insanity Baraq of telling the enemy when we are leaving.  With the brouhaha over the Koran burnings, the apologies, and now the rampage by a US soldier, is there really anyone left who thinks and calls for doubling down at this point?  Is there a Jew's chance in Mecca of the YA doctrine being applied? 

No. 

With good reason, the Reps have sought to communicate the weakness and incoherence of Baraq's policies in this area, and the consequences of our leaving.   There has also been, prepare yourself for a shock, some pandering to the Rep base.  I think in particular of Romney. 

So, my point is this: come the election, the Baraq is going to whip out quotes from the Rep candidate and ask "Look at this mess! Do you really want to vote for this guy to do Surge 2.0?"  As JDN has noted, large majorities are fed up and weary of Afpakia-- which given the incoherence of our efforts under both Bush and Baraq is a rather rational conclusison.   Thus it seems to me that the Reps have, as I warned several times a number of months ago, have lost their dominance in an area normally of great political strength for them-- foreign affairs and things military.


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12168


« Reply #1382 on: March 11, 2012, 01:06:04 PM »

I think the uncommited swing voters are much more concerned about the surge in gas prices and the surge in food costs and the surge in unemployment and national debt under Obozo.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #1383 on: March 11, 2012, 01:14:44 PM »

You may have noticed that Baraq, with the enthusiastic aid and comfort of the pravdas and the chattering classes is rather good as misdirecting attention.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12168


« Reply #1384 on: March 11, 2012, 01:16:40 PM »

You may have noticed that Baraq, with the enthusiastic aid and comfort of the pravdas and the chattering classes is rather good as misdirecting attention.

Yup, but all the chattering in the world doesn't cover up the prices paid at every grocery store and gas station visit.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #1385 on: March 12, 2012, 03:18:17 AM »

In "As good as it gets"  Jack Nicholson's character, an author, is asked by a woman admirer "how he writes women so well". 

"I write as for a man, but I take out reason and responsibility" his character replies. That would seem to apply to some of the women in the propaganda piece from POTH.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/us/politics/centrist-women-tell-of-disenchantment-with-gop.html?src=recg
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #1386 on: March 14, 2012, 10:30:26 AM »


http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/romney-failed-to-close-the-deal-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

IMHO some insightful political advice in this one.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 10:33:07 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #1387 on: March 14, 2012, 09:19:40 PM »



How The Race Stacks Up From Here
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on March 14, 2012

Printer-Friendly Version
Romney is on track to win the nomination when the primaries and caucuses are over on June 6th.

Currently, Romney has 498 of the 1,144 he needs to be nominated. He now has 53% of the selected delegates, a clip he has been maintaining since the start of the process. Santorum has 25%, Gingrich 15%, and Paul 7%.
CURRENT DELEGATE COUNT
Romney   498   53%
Santorum   239   25%
Gingrich   139   15%
Paul   69   7%
Romney is very likely to win the following winner-take-all primaries:
LIKELY ROMNEY WINNER TAKE ALL WINS
Puerto Rico   23
DC   19
Maryland   37
Connecticut   28
Delaware   17
Rhode Island   19
Oregon   28
Cal   172
Montana   25
NJ   50
Utah   40
458
                        +  498 (current Romney)
                 ________________________
           956 TOTAL
In addition, Romney will probably win these winner take all states:
Wisconsin   42
Indiana   46
West Virginia   31
Nebraska   35
South Dakota   28
   182
+ 956
  ___________
  1,138
Finally, Romney will probably do very well in the following proportional representation states. Some, like New York and Illinois, award most of their delegates as a winner take all by Congressional District .
P.R. State Delegates / Prob Romney
New York   95 / 80
Illinois   69 / 45
Maine   24 / 20
New Mexico   23 / 15
      160
+ 1,138
  ___________
   1,298
Needed to Nominate: 1,144

So, even if Romney loses the winner take all primaries in North Carolina and Pennsylvania and gets clobbered in Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and a few other conservative states, he should win the nomination by the time the primaries are over on June 6th.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12168


« Reply #1388 on: March 14, 2012, 09:23:12 PM »

I saw an interesting article that said that the longer Newt stays in, the better it is for Mittens, as most Newt supports would go to Santorum rather than Mittens. If so, the Sheldon A. money spigot might stay on until Mitt is assured victory.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #1389 on: March 14, 2012, 09:27:36 PM »

How does Santorum stack up in the polling now vs. Baraq and how does that compare to Romney?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12168


« Reply #1390 on: March 14, 2012, 09:38:52 PM »

How does Santorum stack up in the polling now vs. Baraq and how does that compare to Romney?


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15 (see trends).
 
For the fifth time in six days, Mitt Romney leads President Obama in a hypothetical general election matchup. Yesterday, the only exception, the two men were tied. See tracking history for Obama vs. all four Republican candidates.
 
Today’s numbers show Romney at 46% and the president at 44%. If Rick Santorum is the GOP nominee, the president is up by a point, 45% to 44%. Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Today’s numbers are based upon interviews completed Sunday, Monday and Tuesday before last night’s victories for Santorum in the Alabama and Mississippi primaries were reported.
 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #1391 on: March 14, 2012, 09:48:01 PM »

Interesting that Santorum is close enough that he may be within the statistical margin of error! 

One of my concerns about him has been that his cultural conservatism would hurt him badly with independents and women and make him a sure loser, but the data at the moment seems to say otherwise.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12168


« Reply #1392 on: March 14, 2012, 09:49:55 PM »

Interesting that Santorum is close enough that he may be within the statistical margin of error! 

One of my concerns about him has been that his cultural conservatism would hurt him badly with independents and women and make him a sure loser, but the data at the moment seems to say otherwise.

If it's close, traditional dems voters, like the dead and illegal aliens will push Obozo over the top. Mittens, like it or not, is America's last chance.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1393 on: March 15, 2012, 09:40:43 AM »

"Interesting that Santorum is close enough that he may be within the statistical margin of error!"

True.  Also interesting and scary is that, if the election were held today and it isn't, the difference of 3 points of margin of error polling is the difference between winning the White House, ending Obamacare, lowering tax rates, vetoing spending bills, choosing the Supreme Court nominees, Fed nominees, the entire Executive branch, etc. and losing and leaving all that to Obama and his associates from the Ayers, Alinski, Rev. Wright side of politics.

I was listening to Jay Cost or Weekly Standard yesterday who a polling result analyst formerly with Real Clear Politics.  He pointed out Santorum has 2 sides like Newt.  He has the perfect American story with blue collar roots and attracts lower income workers to the Republican side.  Then he also puts his foot in mouth and gets off-message sometimes like his anti-JFK talk recently. In the middle of the BCP religious freedom debate RS was saying JFK should have brought his Catholic faith more into governing?  Valid or not valid, it is about as focused for this election as the lunar colony proposal.  We have a 16 trillion dollar debt, have 35 million people un- or under-employed, are losing our largest state, Iran going nuclear, among other problems.


Santorum carried 27% of independents in his last PA election.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2167


« Reply #1394 on: March 15, 2012, 10:23:37 AM »

A better measure would be the poll numbers from the swing states.  A national poll doesn't tell you as much as much, since there are only a few states that are really up for grabs.  This may be another election, no matter the winner, where the electoral college faces some serious derision. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12168


« Reply #1395 on: March 15, 2012, 10:29:35 AM »

A better measure would be the poll numbers from the swing states.  A national poll doesn't tell you as much as much, since there are only a few states that are really up for grabs.  This may be another election, no matter the winner, where the electoral college faces some serious derision. 

True, and from memory there are multiple key states that went blue in 2008 that are now showing serious kool-aid hangovers.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2167


« Reply #1396 on: March 15, 2012, 01:53:59 PM »

I think you are right.

A better measure would be the poll numbers from the swing states.  A national poll doesn't tell you as much as much, since there are only a few states that are really up for grabs.  This may be another election, no matter the winner, where the electoral college faces some serious derision. 

True, and from memory there are multiple key states that went blue in 2008 that are now showing serious kool-aid hangovers.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6166


« Reply #1397 on: March 15, 2012, 05:17:18 PM »

"A better measure would be the poll numbers from the swing states."  

Here is a 2008 Obama electoral map.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/
Some of the swing states and red states that Obama won:

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida
Virginia, North Carolina
New jersey, New Hampshire
Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana
Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado

The R. nominee needs about 97 points out of states Obama won last time, which by my count is about 7 good sized states from that list.  That is a very high bar.  Really have to aim for a landslide, not to eek out a close one.

I think there is a poll showing Obama now leading in Florida.  We will see.  Marco Rubio (2012 VP nominee?) won Fl in 2010 by a million votes; second place was another Republican.

Ohio is also crucial.  Colorado, Virginia and battleground Wisconsin will all be leading indicators.  If the Republican wins the real swing states, the truly red states will already be won.  

What will we need to do to win bigdog's vote?
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2167


« Reply #1398 on: March 15, 2012, 06:33:45 PM »

Doug, my state will go for the GOP.  And I won't be voting for President Obama. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31806


« Reply #1399 on: March 16, 2012, 12:04:42 AM »

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450004577279583954819216.html?mod=opinion_newsreel

By KARL ROVE
Last July, President Obama's campaign announced that it had raised an average of $29 million in each of the previous three months for itself and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). I was only mildly impressed. After all, that was well below the $50 million a month needed to reach the campaign's goal of a $1 billion war chest for the 2012 race.

Seven months later, I'm even less impressed. Through January, the president has raised an average of $24 million a month for his campaign and the DNC. Next week, the Obama campaign will release its February numbers, but the president is on track to be hundreds of millions of dollars shy of his original goal.

It's not for lack of trying. Mr. Obama has already attended 103 fund-raisers, roughly one every three days since he kicked off his campaign last April (twice his predecessor's pace).

The president faces other fund-raising challenges. For one, there are only so many times any candidate can go to New York or Hollywood or San Francisco for a $1 million fund-raiser. Team Obama is running through its easy money venues quickly.

CONT.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 42 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!