GOP Nominee

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree about the contraception issue being toxic but completely disagree with your assessment of Romney's performance. The plants in the audience obviously wanted to draw him in to the debate and force him to speak to the issue, which would have been distracting at best and potentially damaging if it made the news cycle. Instead, he rather seamlessly transitioned to a broader, much more favorable argument. It was both politically savvy and, imo, drew a strong contrast between the fundamental difference that separates what the GOP should be and Democratic Party. Romney is getting better at driving a message.

Romney is driving a much more simplistic message this time around, It is less effective for me, but fortunately I watched his performance in 2008 almost obsessively and understand that he has just adopted the McCain grand strategy. He needs to put all of his opinions into soundbites, twist irrelevant and useful facts where appropriate, and say as little as humanly possible in the primary. He can get a bit more interesting in the general, but not much.

Also fortunately, Romney is not as old as McCain was in 2008 and nowhere near as decrepit. He will not seem like a bad bet for the White House. I challenge any Republican to say with a straight face that McCain was fit for the presidency the second time he ran. He had already put a down payment on a casket.

[Lemur]

So Romney wins, but once again outspends his rivals by huge margins. I'd like to see how he would fare against Santorum without a 7-1 (or 21-1) handicap.

Rick Santorum’s campaign and super PAC have been outspent by a margin of 7 to 1 in the Illinois primary, with forces supporting Mitt Romney shelling out a total of about $3.7 million on the airwaves, according to a GOP media-buying source.

Romney’s campaign has spent $1,117,704 million in Illinois while the super PAC Restore Our Future has put in $2.556,353 million.

The Santorum campaign spent a comparatively modest $219,961 and the super PAC backing Santorum, the Red White and Blue Fund, put in $312,150.

The gulf was even more enormous in the crucial, expensive Chicago media market. There, Romney’s campaign spent $710,158 and his super PAC spent $1,367,125. The only pro-Santorum spending was $97,119 from the campaign, the same source said.

That amounts to a spending disparity of 21 to 1 in Romney’s favor.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So Romney wins, but once again outspends his rivals by huge margins. I'd like to see how he would fare against Santorum without a 7-1 (or 21-1) handicap.

Rick Santorum’s campaign and super PAC have been outspent by a margin of 7 to 1 in the Illinois primary, with forces supporting Mitt Romney shelling out a total of about $3.7 million on the airwaves, according to a GOP media-buying source.

Romney’s campaign has spent $1,117,704 million in Illinois while the super PAC Restore Our Future has put in $2.556,353 million.

The Santorum campaign spent a comparatively modest $219,961 and the super PAC backing Santorum, the Red White and Blue Fund, put in $312,150.

The gulf was even more enormous in the crucial, expensive Chicago media market. There, Romney’s campaign spent $710,158 and his super PAC spent $1,367,125. The only pro-Santorum spending was $97,119 from the campaign, the same source said.

That amounts to a spending disparity of 21 to 1 in Romney’s favor.

He needs to outspend the rest this round. He is the least "conservative" candidate running for G.O.P nomination in a generally conservative nation. If he can just get through the GOP gauntlet, I believe that his natural instincts are right in line with the the nations plurality. I think that people who are tired of the divisiveness of Obama want a competent guy who doesn't scare them to try his hand at this tough situation . I think that the GOP has a chance to win this in spite of themselves. We won't need to outspend in the general, we just need to match.

I was surprised when W won re-election. I didn't expect that. He was a likable guy who we all knew was a mental dwarf. Romney has competency and Obama seems to have failed at the one thing he was elected for - his unifying charm. We all knew that he wasn't ready for the job, but we thought that he would work his magic on his opponents. The nation leans right, we just need a candidate who leans right and doesn't piss off as many people as the guy in office right now. We don't need Torquemada.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Obama is only divisive because talk radio has made him so.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Obama is only divisive becausewe dou talk radio h,as made him so.

Is that really the only reason? He has done just a bang up job over the last 3 years? I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he first started. He is old news and did a poor job at articulating a unifying message or a solid rationale for what the heck he has been doing. This is the area that i least expected him to flop so badly in

[gaelic cowboy]

Is that really the only reason? He has done just a bang up job over the last 3 years? I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he first started. He is old news and did a poor job at articulating a unifying message or a solid rationale for what the heck he has been doing. This is the area that i least expected him to flop so badly in

So the solution is to replace with someone having a poor time articulating his message to his own supporters.

[gaelic cowboy]

Obama is divisive because he hasn't kept to all his promises. He used a lot of campaign promises to a lot of groups to secure the election, and some of his key talking points involved closing guantanomo and undoing the executive over-extension caused by the Bush administration. He has totally failed to do that, and in fact you could argue he's expanded executive power even further.

There are other promises that you probably aren't familiar with, like overtures to the Native American community to give Leonard Peltier clemency, which are also holding him back because he not only failed to deliver, but he seems to be pretending people will forget.

None of these things would be delivered by a republican president either now would they, in fact I bet very few GOP voters would vote for a candidate based on his stance on these issues.

ACIN is correct in his assertion that Obama has been made a divisive figure due to conservo-media hysterics. They do it because it sells and not neccessarily to the advantage of the republican voters or the party establishment.

[gaelic cowboy]

That really is completely beside the point. Obama did not deliver on his promises, and in fact has done many things very differently than he led his supporters to believe back in '08. The fact that the Republicans are generally no better is not a redeeming factor at all.

I disagree your entire point is he is divisive because of the opinions and policies you listed and not due to ideology or talk radio.

However none of these are/were republican policies so they cannot be the reason a Republican would not vote for Obama.

To be honest the only promise of note in my view Obama didnt deliver on was closing Guantanamo Bay.
The ability of any President to close that place is restricted due to the nature of the prisoners in it and because of how they were arrested and imprisoned.

he said he would get healthcare and he did

he said he would ramp up Afghanistan and he did

he said he would pursue Bin Laden and he did

he said he would work to fix the economy and he has Most Americans Since 2004 See Economy Improving as Jobs Pick Up It might be weak but it there

he said he would reset relations with other powers and he did.

and he said he would get a budget through and he did even as Boehner tried to bring the world down on all our heads again

I dont see many failed promises what I do see are promises that dont appeal to republicans and are therefore ignored.

Crucially there promises more for the independent and middle voters basically pleasing republicans is the last thing any president even a republican should do.



Now to me I dont have an oar in this boat but I do have an interest in politics so I will comment from time to time. They way I see it a President of America has few real options in domestic policy, foreign policy is the main arena they can act.

I expect when he wins which I believe he will things like Iran, Russia and China will get more airing. (they will of course be the same for a republican Prez)

Iran especially as America needs time to manage the run up to whatever confrontation it takes be it political or forceful.(right now really would be a disaster for the USA hence the current situation)

[Strike For The South]

What promises has he not delivired on?

I'm sure there are some but I'm not sure they are more enumabrle than anyother president, dating back to when Jesus gave Moses the constitution.

Simply repeating "PROMISES WERE BROKEN" is a hollow talking point used to fill space

[PanzerJaeger]

ACIN is correct in his assertion that Obama has been made a divisive figure due to conservo-media hysterics. They do it because it sells and not neccessarily to the advantage of the republican voters or the party establishment.

Nope. The 'conservo-media' is largely an echo chamber, with a very narrow reach and audience. The same people who listen to Rush watch Fox and visit Drudge. These people were never Obama supporters. Apart from occasional stories like the ACORN meltdown, there is not much spill over to the mainstream media. While conservative media can gin up the Right, it really has little ability to persuade those who are not already politically inclined to conservative ideology.

GC is right. One of the reasons that Obama has become less popular with the broader public is because he over-promised and under-delivered. Hope and change were just catchy slogans to his campaign, but they meant something to a lot of young people who had never been involved in politics before. To see Washington remain... well... Washington turned a lot of his most ardent supporters off. Other reasons include the perceived failure of the Stimulus, the explosion of government spending and debt, the controversial healthcare bill, and the lackluster economy.

[Strike For The South]

Its the only talking point that matters, going as far back as you want to. If people held presidents accountable for not delivering on promises, maybe we wouldn't live in a country where people are afraid to admit the ship is sinking?

Obama is not a bad president, and I don't want anyone to think I rabidly dislike him. I would much rather have Obama over most of the Republican candidates, no doubt, but not enough to vote for him. The Patriot Act, and all of its follow-up acts and reforms, are still very much in place. Gitmo is still alive and well. Also, like I said above, a certain Native American political prisoner is still in jail after Obama hinted at clemency to get the native american vote (something Clinton did as well) although I doubt that matters to most of you.

You say hollow talking point, I say its the argument you people need to remember.

Using not delivering on promises as the crux of your arguement is dangerously close to gotcha moments

Obama has kept on the path of his campaign albeit with a slight move to the center. That is to be expected becuase comprimise is how politics work. These things matter if you can source them, Did he ever say he was going to reduce the scope of the patriot act

"As president, Barack Obama would revisit the PATRIOT Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ersight-on-go/

Not really a call to dismantle it, in fact the language implies it is most deffinetly going to be kept.

[gaelic cowboy]

Nope. The 'conservo-media' is largely an echo chamber, with a very narrow reach and audience. The same people who listen to Rush watch Fox and visit Drudge. These people were never Obama supporters. Apart from occasional stories like the ACORN meltdown, there is not much spill over to the mainstream media. While conservative media can gin up the Right, it really has little ability to persuade those who are not already politically inclined to conservative ideology.

Conservo media has hampered the GOP race and forced there candidates to talk more trash than a binman.

GC is right. One of the reasons that Obama has become less popular with the broader public is because he over-promised and under-delivered. Hope and change were just catchy slogans to his campaign, but they meant something to a lot of young people who had never been involved in politics before. To see Washington remain... well... Washington turned a lot of his most ardent supporters off. Other reasons include the perceived failure of the Stimulus, the explosion of government spending and debt, the controversial healthcare bill, and the lackluster economy.

What a load of cobblers Washington remain Washington.

As I recall Obama was promising to use it to fix things, generally most Republicans lie and proclaim they will strangle it.

That is what every republican has promised since Reagan and it is plainly a lie, not one of them has delivered on that anytime ever not even Reagan. We all know full well they never will make governmet smaller but since the process of picking them demands it they keep saying it.

To be honest I find Republicans/Conservatives talking about how Obama broke promises to be a laugh sure if he had kept them all they would be even madder than now.

[Strike For The South]

.

The Patriot Act, and all of its follow-up acts and reforms, are still very much in place

This statment implies that Obama was at the very least going to reduce the scope of the act. I am refuetinng this point. In my refutation I provided credible evidence from a specific plank in the mans platform.


You listed 3 seperate promises. Gitmo I'll agree and I can't source the indian one becuase I have no idea where to start looking.

Don't complain becuase some of what you threw didn't stick

[Strike For The South]

it's impolite to talk about personal finances in polite company

TACT GOOD SIR

[PanzerJaeger]

Conservo media has hampered the GOP race and forced there candidates to talk more trash than a binman.



What a load of cobblers Washington remain Washington.

As I recall Obama was promising to use it to fix things, generally most Republicans lie and proclaim they will strangle it.

That is what every republican has promised since Reagan and it is plainly a lie, not one of them has delivered on that anytime ever not even Reagan. We all know full well they never will make governmet smaller but since the process of picking them demands it they keep saying it.

To be honest I find Republicans/Conservatives talking about how Obama broke promises to be a laugh sure if he had kept them all they would be even madder than now.

I don't know what any of that has to do with the assertion that conservative media has made Obama more controversial. Obama was already controversial with the people who subscribe to it. Obama is controversial because of real things he has and has not done.

[Strike For The South]

Well, you're right, if what's on paper is what matters. I think a president should be held accountable to the sentiment and the hype that his PR department creates. He was going out of his way to give off the impression that the patriot act and all the Bush wrong-doings would be somehow undone if he was elected.

I never thought that was realistic, but if I was a supporter of his I would be offended because not even the spirit of those "promises" has been kept. He's very much toed a centrist--almost right-wing--line with the patriot act, the wars, and gitmo.

If you're honestly trying to tell me that you think he never gave off that message, then fine. What's on paper is what's on paper. But I remember '08 in a different light, with a lot of hype, a lot of talk, and as it turned out none of it had substance.

The planks in the platform are what matter. I remember him being to the left of Hilirary and painting himself as an outsider. Other than that I was 18 years old and drunk I can't ring of specific speeches

I would say he is on the left side of the wars. A mass, quick pull out isn't really a viable option

If people chose to beilive he would be Kucinich that's their problem

[gaelic cowboy]

I don't know what any of that has to do with the assertion that conservative media has made Obama more controversial. Obama was already controversial with the people who subscribe to it. Obama is controversial because of real things he has and has not done.

So it's wrong that republican candidates claim they want smaller government everytime.

Obama might be less popular with his initial support but I dont see him being SO controversial they wont vote for him again. Your listening to your own echo chamber telling you that being controversial means he will lose.

It didnt stop Bush, Clinton or Reagan from getting a second term and they were all controversial and all of them broke promises. The differences is they were capable of explaining why they changed there minds apart from Bush who rode a wave really.

[PanzerJaeger]

.

This statment implies that Obama was at the very least going to reduce the scope of the act. I am refuetinng this point. In my refutation I provided credible evidence from a specific plank in the mans platform.


You listed 3 seperate promises. Gitmo I'll agree and I can't source the indian one becuase I have no idea where to start looking.

Don't complain becuase some of what you threw didn't stick

I think the confusion comes from Obama's promise to repeal the Patriot Act when he ran for the Senate. He later changed his position, but did nothing to change people's impression of his position. The example is kind of emblematic of this whole discussion. Obama ran an incredibly vague, esoteric campaign which allowed a whole lot of people attach their political hopes and dreams to his bandwagon, only to be left disappointed. Sure they could have done some research and figured out he was just another politician, but we're talking about Obama supporters here...

[gaelic cowboy]

I think the confusion comes from Obama's promise to repeal the Patriot Act when he ran for the Senate. He later changed his position, but did nothing to change people's impression of his position.

There is no votes in it so I cant see him change it nor explain it ever, plus there is no point trying to change it now he would never get it through anyway.

The example is kind of emblematic of this whole discussion. Obama ran an incredibly vague, esoteric campaign which allowed a whole lot of people attach their political hopes and dreams to his bandwagon, only to be left disappointed. Sure they could have done some research and figured out he was just another politician, but we're talking about Obama supporters here...

Change that to Romney and there is no differ the only fella who says what he means is prob Santorum none of us would like that very much.

[PanzerJaeger]

So it's wrong that republican candidates claim they want smaller government everytime.

Obama might be less popular with his initial support but I dont see him being SO controversial they wont vote for him again. Your listening to your own echo chamber telling you that being controversial means he will lose.

It didnt stop Bush, Clinton or Reagan from getting a second term and they were all controversial and all of them broke promises. The differences is they were capable of explaining why they changed there minds apart from Bush who rode a wave really.

I didn't say any of that! I've been pretty clear in this thread that I believe the election will hinge on the economy, and the trends are not going in the GOP's direction. I’ve also been clear as to my stance on the impact conservative media has had on the party. And speaking of the GOP, what does your assertion about conservative media's impact on people's perceptions of Obama have to do with Republican promises of smaller government? You're trying to lead me into a discussion wholly different than where we started.

[Strike For The South]

I think the confusion comes from Obama's promise to repeal the Patriot Act when he ran for the Senate. He later changed his position, but did nothing to change people's impression of his position. The example is kind of emblematic of this whole discussion. Obama ran an incredibly vague, esoteric campaign which allowed a whole lot of people attach their political hopes and dreams to his bandwagon, only to be left disappointed.

In 2003 he said this

Yes, I would vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act, although I would consider replacing that shoddy and dangerous law with a new, carefully crafted proposal that addressed in a much more limited fashion the legitimate needs of law enforcement in combating terrorism (for example, permitting a warrant for the interception of cell phone calls, and not just land-based phones to accommodate changes in technology).

But in 2006 he voted for extending it. The language in his statement isn't very strong, at most it is a rejection of the act in it's current form while stipulating that another incernation will replace it

Sure they could have done some research and figured out he was just another politician, but we're talking about Obama supporters here...

I love a boy who can make me laugh

[gaelic cowboy]

Any word on how Romey is doing now did he win enough that he has it in the bag.

[Strike For The South]

Any word on how Romey is doing now did he win enough that he has it in the bag.

At this point it is practically impossible to reach the needed number of delegates to claim outright victory which would Santorum/Gingric/Paul would have to concede and that aint happening. I can see all 4 of them taking this thing to Tampa, at which point I am hopping for Chicago 68, it won't happen but a girl can dream.

[gaelic cowboy]

The only way he'll get that kind of support again is if he's running against a terrifying reactionary like Santorum, or if his PR department can make Romney look like a Bush III.

No need they should just make him out to be like Obama then Obama wins.

[gaelic cowboy]

At this point it is practically impossible to reach the needed number of delegates to claim outright victory which would Santorum/Gingric/Paul would have to concede and that aint happening. I can see all 4 of them taking this thing to Tampa, at which point I am hopping for Chicago 68, it won't happen but a girl can dream.

What happens to delegates pledged to candidates that concede are they allowed make there own choice or do they vote the way the former candidate wants them too?

How Political Primaries Work

Hmm just read that they go to whoever they endorse afterwards, how is that a proper way to divide the delegates they may end up endorsing the lowest candidate from there state when they voted.

Strike that I didnt read it properly.

[Strike For The South]

What happens to delegates pledged to candidates that concede are they allowed make there own choice or do they vote the way the former candidate wants them too?

In general 2 things happen,

Canidate drops out and throws support behind another canidate thus swaying his delegates

Canidate drops out but state requries delgates to vote as they did during the primary

[gaelic cowboy]

Interstingly Romney is way ahead but with a smallish popular vote I take it that means he wons a lot of small population states the others couldnt campaign in.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Obama is divisive because he hasn't kept to all his promises.

My word, a president with a divided Congress couldn't do everything he said he wanted done.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ises/obameter/

2.746 times more promises kept than broken. 3.57 times more promises kept or done as a compromise than broken.

But let's just repeat talking points. Talking points that originate from conservative media.

[ajaxfetish]

Change that to Romney and there is no differ the only fella who says what he means is prob Santorum none of us would like that very much.

And Paul just continues to stay conveniently invisible ...

Ajax

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hello GC.

Romney continues to pile up wins in states where the GOP will not win the general. Illinois? New Hampshire? Virginia (with only Paul on the ballot with him)? Wins of weak value in Ohio and Florida -- must wins for the general.

Romney is a virtual lock on the nomination -- he has the money to contest everything the whole way -- but he doesn't inspire and doesn't appeal to the tea partyer wing as anything except an "anbody but Obama" choice.

"Anybody but Obama" will not turn out enough votes in the general to win it.

Four more years of same. Dems take WH, Dems keep Senate (maybe on 50-50), GOP gains a notch or three in house. Budget improves as military spending goes back to late 90's level and other programs rate of growth slowed. 1.8% growth for next 2-4.