Is Mittens now unstoppable?

Since Romney released ten years of returns to John McCain (who subsequently did NOT pick the Mittster as his running mate), how can he justify not releasing those returns to the rest of us? He can't claim he doesn't have them. His only response is that he just doesn't think he ought to have to do what all the other candidates have done.
 
Unabogie said:
Since Romney released ten years of returns to John McCain (who subsequently did NOT pick the Mittster as his running mate), how can he justify not releasing those returns to the rest of us? He can't claim he doesn't have them. His only response is that he just doesn't think he ought to have to do what all the other candidates have done.
Click to expand...
McCain and Romney are kindred spirits. Only serfs can immediately name the number of houses they own without having to take their shoes off, and surfs are not worthy of such consideration.

Daredelvis
 
daredelvis said:
McCain and Romney are kindred spirits. Only serfs can immediately name the number of houses they own without having to take their shoes off, and surfs are not worthy of such consideration.

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

I saw some speculation that because of the stock market losses in 2008, his 2009 taxes could have been close to zero on millions in income, which would explain his reluctance to release them.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It's irresponsible NOT to!
 
Looking at the polls again, I see the following:

Romney 34.5%
Gingrich 23.0
Santorum 17.5
Paul 14.3
undecided 10.3
 
If Romney has actually announced as a campaign promise that he would block government funding of Planned Parenthood, after the Komen fiasco, wouldn't that hurt him with everyone who's not a fringe pro-lifer?
 
When it comes to delegates, Romney's way ahead:

Romney 101
Gingrich 32
Santorum 17
Paul 9
Huntsman 2

Considering that Huntsman dropped out in favor of Romney, we could give Mittens 103, meaning that, if everyone else united against him, the delegate count would be:

Romney 103
others 58

There are three primaries today: Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. It's now 6:25 here on the west coast. in Colorado it's 7:25, and in Missouri and Minnesota it's 8:25, which means the polls have closed there. I would expect Romney to win these across the board. Let's see if that's true.
 
Last edited:
Silly Green Monkey said:
If Romney has actually announced as a campaign promise that he would block government funding of Planned Parenthood, after the Komen fiasco, wouldn't that hurt him with everyone who's not a fringe pro-lifer?
Click to expand...

Oh my, did he actually say that?

If so, it sure won't play well in the general election.
 
Puppycow said:
Wow. This race keeps surprising me. :confused:

Santorum won Missouri and Minnesota, and is leading in Colorado too.

Romney actually came in third after Ron Paul in Minnesota.
Click to expand...

Me too. While these races don't give Santorum any delegates per se, it certainly keeps his candidacy going, and there are still a lot of delegates to be won. I'd love it if the GOP convention turned into a free-for-all.
 
Puppycow said:
Wow. This race keeps surprising me. :confused:

Santorum won Missouri and Minnesota, and is leading in Colorado too.

Romney actually came in third after Ron Paul in Minnesota.
Click to expand...

I live in St. Paul. Republicans in this state fall in two varieties, really. There's the guys in the country, who, well, let's just say that Bachmann got elected for a reason. And then the people in the city, the college kids? Ron Paul, man.

There's no in between. At all. There's hard-core libertarian nutjob college people and hard-core religious nuts. Minnesota has a much stronger moralizing streak than people assume it does, because we have such a nice reputation.
 
The Santorum sweep officially made my day. Not because I support him or have an ounce of respect for him, but becase a GOP divided against itself makes me a happy camper.
 
Bad news for Al Kerry down the road.

We have repeatedly noted the pattern in which Mr. Romney's stronger states and counties have been associated with lower Republican turnout.

So far, it was not clear that this had lost Mr. Romney a state -- save perhaps Iowa, when virtually anything might have altered the result.

But in Colorado, where the demographics were reasonably favorable to Mr. Romney -- he won 60 percent of the vote there in 2008 -- it may have made the difference. Mr. Romney's stronger areas in the state were associated with turnout declines of about 20 percent. But turnout was steady or slightly up in places where Rick Santorum did well.

Among other problems for Mr. Romney, this suggests that suggests that the caucus states could be problematic rather than advantageous to Mr. Romney, with his superior organization being outmatched by very conservative voters who have low levels of enthusiasm for him.
Click to expand...

Link
 
WildCat said:
Caucuses bring out the true wingnuts.
Click to expand...
Seems to be true, WildCat. So why do the party insiders - who must recognize this fact - choose caucuses over primary voting? They must know that creating a primary process that encourages the extremes of their party (left or right) does them no good in November.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom