Is Mittens now unstoppable?

Puppycow said:
Gingrich and Santorum would be terrible picks for VP, IMO.

Rand Paul would be the best way to ensure that the Ron Paul supporters vote for Romney in November and would also be a strong reason for Ron Paul not to make a third-party run, which would probably doom Romney in November.

Even if he doesn't go for Rand Paul, I don't think he will pick either Gingrich or Santorum. He might go for Christie or Rubio.
Click to expand...

You are not alone in your reasoning. The odds for Republican VP are

Rubio 3:1
Christie 5:1
Rand Paul 7:1
 
Ladewig said:
You are not alone in your reasoning. The odds for Republican VP are

Rubio 3:1
Christie 5:1
Rand Paul 7:1
Click to expand...
Maybe that's why I am a Democrat. The Republicans recent love for putting family members of previous politicians into positions of power.
Didn't we decide against a Monarchy somewhere way back when?


Not a particular fan of Hillary Clinton either. BTW
 
Distracted1 said:
Maybe that's why I am a Democrat. The Republicans recent love for putting family members of previous politicians into positions of power.
Didn't we decide against a Monarchy somewhere way back when?


Not a particular fan of Hillary Clinton either. BTW
Click to expand...

Well, for one thing, it's not limited to the Republicans - Clinton notwithstanding, the Kennedy clan has been a powerful force in the Democratic Party for almost a century. The Rockefellers switched parties from time to time, but their power in politics was unrivaled.

So I think this is more the natural result of powerful, monied families being involved in politics. Corporations do it, unions do it, special interest groups do it, and families like the Kennedys, Rockefellers, Romneys, and Bushes do it, too.
 
Cleon said:
Well, for one thing, it's not limited to the Republicans - Clinton notwithstanding, the Kennedy clan has been a powerful force in the Democratic Party for almost a century. The Rockefellers switched parties from time to time, but their power in politics was unrivaled.

So I think this is more the natural result of powerful, monied families being involved in politics. Corporations do it, unions do it, special interest groups do it, and families like the Kennedys, Rockefellers, Romneys, and Bushes do it, too.
Click to expand...
Seems to be more of a Republican thing for the last 30 years or so.
It irks me that it exists in either party, however. It seems like something that should be done away with via legislation.

Sorry to veer so far off topic. Maybe I will start a thread about it.
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
Seems to be more of a Republican thing for the last 30 years or so.
It irks me that it exists in either party, however. It seems like something that should be done away with via legislation.
Click to expand...

How? I'd find it really odd if you weren't allowed to run for public office because your dad/mom/sister/brother/uncle was a senator or governor.
 
Distracted1 said:
Seems to be more of a Republican thing for the last 30 years or so.
It irks me that it exists in either party, however. It seems like something that should be done away with via legislation.

Sorry to veer so far off topic. Maybe I will start a thread about it.
Click to expand...

It's not a Republican/Democrat thing. It's a family business thing.

Here's some recent Dems: Andrew Cuomo, Chris Dodd, Al Gore, Hilary, Harold Ford Jr.
 
Following last night's Super Tuesday results, I looked at the polls. The standings are now:

Romney 38.3%
Santorum 26.3
Gingrich 14.3
Paul 12.0
undecided 9.1

The delegate count is now:

Romney 404
Santorum 161
Gingrich 105
Paul 61

It would appear that Mittens, a.k.a. "the cyborg," is on his way to getting the 1,144 delegates needed to clench the nomination. However, there could be surprises ahead. In any case his base of support is shaky. Conservatives are barely luke-warm to him.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
You're trying very hard to spin winning as losing.
Click to expand...


Of course I'm not trying to spin this as losing. He won Ohio. But he certainly didn't deliver the knockout punch that he wanted and that pundits had predicted he might have been able to deliver.

Did you read the Politico article? Here's another: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...m_in_the_ohio_republican_primary_.single.html

Romney won the Ohio primary by a prosciutto-thin margin, given that he out spent his rival Rick Santorum by 4-to-1. The victory in the most coveted Super Tuesday contest was the story of disaster narrowly averted. Santorum could tell a story of defying the odds and marvel at how far he'd come. He won three of the 10 races—with victories in Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Tennessee—and nearly claimed the big prize with a campaign operation held together by bailing wire and sturdy boards found at the roadside.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Am I right in thinking a lot of Republicans would have voted 'none of the above' if it was an option? There seems to be be no real enthusiasm for any of the candidates.
 
By this time in the 2008 Democratic primary, the delegate count was Obama 965 to Clinton 951.

Clearly, the young upstart community organizer from Illinois was doomed. :p
 
I suspect Mittens will b the nominee. However, looking at the upcoming March primaries,- many of which are in conservative states such as Kansas (March 10, 40 delegates), Alabama (3/13, 50 del.), Mississippi (3/13, 40 del.) and Missouri (3/17, 52 del.) - it would seem that Gingrich and Santorum could pick up enough delegates to make things still up in the air well into the year, possibly even leading to a floor fight at the convention.

Perhaps the strongest factor in Romney's favor is that neither Gingrich nor Santorum are likely to bow out of the race and cede their delegates to the other. Right now, unification of their respective delegates would give a single rival to Romney 266 delegates. Add to this the delegates from the states above, totaling 182, then the single anti-Romney candidates would, by late March, have 448 to Romney's 404. Of course, the Illinois primary would probably go to Mittens, but it would still be a much bloodier battle to the nomination.
 
Last edited:
Romney is still alive only because the Newtmare is pulling votes away from Santorum. This gives Mittens a chance because of the winner-take-all states. The floor fight will be ghastly, perhaps damaging to whoever wins, which is, of course peachy from my perspective.

The only real block of votes that will help Mittens in the end is the RP faction.
 
Rasmussen has Romney ahead in Mississippi and Alabama is a toss-up.

It probably over.
 
Have you seen Nate Silver's analysis of the delegate math?

Mr. Santorum will have to win in most places like Illinois to have a decent chance at preventing Mr. Romney from securing the nomination. And he’ll have to win in states much more challenging than Illinois — possibly as challenging as California — to overtake Mr. Romney in the delegate count and have the stronger case that he should be the nominee.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom