Is Mittens now unstoppable?

Sword_Of_Truth said:
10% of those voting in the republican primary were democrats,
Click to expand...

Ugh. Stupid idea. Bad, bad, bad idea. The concept of giving a schmuck like Santorum even the slightest chance at the Presidency in the name of party politics is repulsive to me.

Romney beat Santorum among Catholics too. A Mormon pulling the Catholic vote out from under a Catholic is kind of a big deal.
Click to expand...
The thing is, as Catholics go, Santorum's kinda crazy. He's not JFK; he's more like Bill Donohue. He rings all the alarm bells of being a Traditionalist, which is far outside the mainstream.
So I wonder if Catholics don't realize even better than the rest of us just how much of a nutjob he is.
 
Last edited:
AdMan said:
It is, but not as much if you consider the idiotic things the Catholic candidate said about another previously well-known Catholic candidate and President in the last couple of days.
Click to expand...

You miss the point, you stated that "no one can argue this doesn't show weakness" when in fact that is not true. Large numbers of democrats temporarily crossing the aisle to defeat the candidate they most fear is one argument. Romney bridging the alleged divide between LDS and other Christians is another.

And here is yet another, Romney won Michigan against McCain with 338,000 votes in 2008. Tonight his tally exceeds 345,000+. He was able to mobilize enough of his fellow Republicans and Independents to defeat an artificially boosted Santorum.
 
Tricky said:
I don't think anyone is seriously shocked that Mitt is still in the driver's seat. But he is weakened. How badly did this primary damage him? How quickly will he run back to the middle to try to capture the independants he's alienated? How many of his statements will be used in Obama campaign ads?

He's not dead in the water by any means, but he is going to have to do some fast talking if he hopes to have a chance. I don't think he's up to it, and frankly, I'm glad.
Click to expand...

You mean he'll lose to Obama by a bigger margin?

Probably.

BTW, SoT, out of curiosity: Are you a Romney supporter?
 
When this question was first posed, the answer was emphatically no, Mittens is not unstoppable. And had Santorum not got himself so entangled in the condom (issue), he may very well have derailed Romney. In the end, Santorum just can't help himself. There's a reason his Google problem exists. He's a very divisive person.

So now the answer is that yes, Mittens is unstoppable on his quest to lose badly to the President.
 
Following Romney's wins in Michigan and Arizona I took another look at the polls. The standings are now as follows:

Romney 33.0%
Santorum 31.3
Gingrich 14.7
Paul 11.0
undecided 10.0

The delegate count is now as follows:

Romney 142
Santorum 59
Gingrich 32
Paul 20

It would appear that Romney is back on track. Super Tuesday may tell the tale.
 
Last edited:
Ohio is going to be the biggest battleground. It is traditionally a swing state with a lot of delegates and it has a wide cross-section of demographics. Romney needs to perform well there to reassure the Republicans that he has a chance to win the general election.
 
The Super Tuesday states and delegate numbers are as follows:

Alaska 27
Georgia 76
Idaho 32
Massachusetts 41
North Dakota 28
Ohio 66
Oklahoma 43
Tennessee 58
Vermont 17
Virginia 49

Total delegates 437

Mittens probably has a lock on Massachusetts, vermont and Virginia, for 107 assured delegates. I could see Gingrich taking Georgia and Tennessee for 134 delegates. However, places like Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota and Oklahoma could give their combined 130 delegates to Santorum. That leaves Ohio, with its 66 delegates as the big and, as yet, uncommitted prize. If this is the case, the delegates would be apportioned as follows:

Romney gains 107 delegates
Gingrich gains 134 delegates
Santorum gains 130 delegates
Ohio (?) 66 delegates

Some commentators are saying that Super Tuesday may not wrap things up, and that the struggle for enough delegates to win the election may go right up ti the convention.
 
Last edited:
As I followed the story and this thread I became fearful

Re-read "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis

maybe shouldn't have done that, I didn't sleep well for a bit
 
Cleon said:
Ugh. Stupid idea. Bad, bad, bad idea. The concept of giving a schmuck like Santorum even the slightest chance at the Presidency in the name of party politics is repulsive to me.
Click to expand...

I agree. Even though I accept that Santorum would be easier for Obama to beat, I think it would still be bad for the country for Santorum to win the GOP nomination just because it would make the general election race a stupider thing than it would be if Romney is the GOP candidate.

I'd really rather that race be devoted to discussing the differences between Romney's and Obama's budget and tax proposals, for example, than devoted to debunking the idiotic claims Santorum makes (about euthanasia in the Netherlands, separation of Church and State, the role of Satan in academics, secular political ideology as "theology", etc.)

ETA: Also I think it's dishonest for Democrats to vote in open Republican primaries in an attempt to spoil the results.
 
Last edited:
TubbaBlubba said:
BTW, SoT, out of curiosity: Are you a Romney supporter?
Click to expand...

Nominally.

I was hard Romney in '08 (back when he was the "true conservative alternative" to McCain), soft Romney now.

Undoubtedly, Obamacare is the big "game changer", here. Romney's refusal to distance himself from creating the prototype for Obamas plan has definitely hampered him.

As a fellow Mormon, I am concerned by his stance on abortion, but as I described elsewhere, the Churches position on abortion is more nuanced than that of the Catholics and Evangelicals. Romney has some wiggle room there in my eyes, but he still suffers before the GOP has a whole.

His heresy against conservative dogma on global warming, also hurts him with the base but not me. I gave up on AGW denial years ago and it is at most a minor factor in my current views on energy and the environment.

Ultimately, I'm not pro-Romney because of Romney, I'm pro-Romney because of Obama and the attitudes of the swing voters.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Ultimately, I'm not pro-Romney because of Romney, I'm pro-Romney because of Obama and the attitudes of the swing voters.
Click to expand...
Assuming we can know why we form opinions in the first place (it's arguable that humans are simply ad hoc rationalization machines). But that's another discussion. I think this is largely true for many if not most Mormons. That's just a gut intuition and perhaps biased.
 
TimCallahan said:
The Super Tuesday states and delegate numbers are as follows:

Alaska 27
Georgia 76
Idaho 32
Massachusetts 41
North Dakota 28
Ohio 66
Oklahoma 43
Tennessee 58
Vermont 17
Virginia 49

Total delegates 437

Mittens probably has a lock on Massachusetts, vermont and Virginia, for 107 assured delegates. I could see Gingrich taking Georgia and Tennessee for 134 delegates. However, places like Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota and Oklahoma could give their combined 130 delegates to Santorum. That leaves Ohio, with its 66 delegates as the big and, as yet, uncommitted prize. If this is the case, the delegates would be apportioned as follows:

Romney gains 107 delegates
Gingrich gains 134 delegates
Santorum gains 130 delegates
Ohio (?) 66 delegates

Some commentators are saying that Super Tuesday may not wrap things up, and that the struggle for enough delegates to win the election may go right up ti the convention.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't give too much credence to the polls taken even this week in those upcoming states. Two weeks prior, the polls had Santorum taking Michigan by 14% and Arizona by 3%. What we've seen this year is that as each campaign has imploded, they do not get more than a temporary upwards bump,... the downwards trend continues. I'd think Newt is going to carry Geoergia, but not so sure about Tennessee. Santorum? Can't say. We're now just cueing up the record, "How Low Can He Go". He could find himself in Rick Perry country by Sunday.
 
Mr. Romney, in a speech following his primary victories in Michigan and Arizona, said this:

Mitt Romney said:
"I'll get us that oil from Canada that we deserve."
Click to expand...


As a Canadian, I have to comment on this.

Uh, excuse me, Mr. Romney? You and the U.S. deserve the oil? Sorry, no, you don't deserve it anymore than you deserve any other commodity your nation purchases. We're more than happy to sell it to you, it's a mutually beneficial economic transaction, but you don't have any sort of inherent deserving of the oil over any other nation.

Romney's quote to me is suggestive of the attitude that the U.S. is somehow entitled to oil, especially cheap oil.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Mr. Romney, in a speech following his primary victories in Michigan and Arizona, said this:




As a Canadian, I have to comment on this.

Uh, excuse me, Mr. Romney? You and the U.S. deserve the oil? Sorry, no, you don't deserve it anymore than you deserve any other commodity your nation purchases. We're more than happy to sell it to you, it's a mutually beneficial economic transaction, but you don't have any sort of inherent deserving of the oil over any other nation.

Romney's quote to me is suggestive of the attitude that the U.S. is somehow entitled to oil, especially cheap oil.
Click to expand...

Welcome to American entitlement..
 
Foolmewunz said:
I wouldn't give too much credence to the polls taken even this week in those upcoming states. Two weeks prior, the polls had Santorum taking Michigan by 14% and Arizona by 3%. What we've seen this year is that as each campaign has imploded, they do not get more than a temporary upwards bump,... the downwards trend continues. I'd think Newt is going to carry Georgia, but not so sure about Tennessee. Santorum? Can't say. We're now just cuing up the record, "How Low Can He Go". He could find himself in Rick Perry country by Sunday.
Click to expand...

The joke is much older than this nomination cycle, but it has never been truer. If a candidate changed his name to "A Republican to be named later," he'd easily carry the nomination and probably the election.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
ETA: Also I think it's dishonest for Democrats to vote in open Republican primaries in an attempt to spoil the results.
Click to expand...

I agree that the open primaries are silly, but the GOP are also guilty of the same tactic. Remember faux news urging people to vote Hillary Clinton in the democratic primaries in 08? What gies around comes around
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom