33
   

The Winding Road To The Republican Nomination For President

 
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 07:21 pm
@realjohnboy,
IL is also an open primary state. I haven't decided yet if I'm going to vote in the Dem or Rep primary (I have to pick one). There is a House seat here that is currently held by Dold (R) that is being contested by a number of Dems so I may end up voting in the Dem primary, but if I decide to go with the Rs then I might just vote for Santorum as an anti-Romney vote.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 10:01 am
Romney also said he voted in Dem primaries to influence the race

The Romney campaign has been denouncing Democratic efforts - and now those by Rick Santorum - to get Democrats to vote in Michigan's open primary.

Mitt Romney himself called it a "new low" in politics in a round of TV interviews.

"President Obama's reelection team is now actively engaged in changing the outcome of the Republican primary," declared Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades in an email to the campaign's list. "This is politics at its worst. It doesn't get much more pathetic."

Yet Romney himself gave a similar explanation in his last presidential run for why he crossover voted in in the 1990s in Massachusetts, per this ABC News clip:

ABC News’ Jonathan Greenberger Reports: Republican presidential candididate Mitt Romney offered a new explanation today for why he supported a Democrat in 1992.

That year, Romney, then a registered independent, voted for former Sen. Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary. He told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, in an interview that will air Sunday on "This Week," that his vote was meant as a tactical maneuver aimed at finding the weakest opponent for incumbent President George H.W. Bush.

"In Massachusetts, if you register as an independent, you can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary," said Romney, who until he made an unsuccessful run for Senate in 1994 had spent his adult life as a registered independent. "When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican."

The practice, the piece notes, is known as "raiding," and is what is happening with efforts to get Democrats to turn out today in Michigan. A Romney spokeswoman didn't respond to an email about what the difference is in this case.

UPDATE: Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul emails it's "no comparison at all. This is a blatant effort by Rick Santorum to join forces with President Obama and his supporters to encourage Democrats to vote in the Republican primary."

She pointed to a second email that Rhoades sent last night specifically about the Santorum robocalls, saying, "Out of desperation, Rick Santorum is inviting Democrats into the Republican primary to vote against Mitt Romney. Rick Santorum has moved beyond just 'taking one for the team,' he is now willing to wear the other team's jersey if he thinks it will get him more votes."
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 02:40 pm
Polls close in MI at 8 pm local time. Nate Silver writing in the NY Times does all of his statistical analysis and concludes it is too close to call, in both the popular and delegate results.
He warns against reading too much into the exit polls and the early results which will likely show Romney doing quite well. That may be eroded later in the evening.
I note that the weather is not at all bad in MI. That could be to Romney's advantage. He fares well amongst older voters.
There is some anecdotal reporting of Dems showing up but I still don't see that as being a big deal.
We - or at least I - will probably have to wait until tomorrow for results.
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 02:51 pm
@realjohnboy,
Evidently turnout is low so far:

http://www.freep.com/article/20120228/NEWS15/120228029/Low-voter-turnout-far-Michigan-blamed-little-interest-primary-ballot-confusion

The article also says that people don't like having to choose a partisan ballot (Democrat or Republican).
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 09:30 pm
Twitter tells me Romney has won. Waiting for the numbers.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 10:13 pm
How it was reported here - no actual delegate numbers given for Michigan though

Quote:
Mitt Romney has won the Republican primary race in his native state of Michigan, dealing a blow to his chief rival Rick Santorum and cementing his status as his party’s favoured candidate to run against President Barack Obama.
Earlier, Romney easily won the second primary held on Tuesday, in Arizona. He had been the heavy favourite and his opponents had spent little time campaigning there.
Romney’s sweep of both contests injects his campaign with new momentum ahead of next week’s crucial contests in 10 states, known as Super Tuesday. Santorum had needed a win or a very close second to show that he was still in play and that victories earlier this month in Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri were not a fluke.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/romney-takes-michigan-primary-after-easy-arizona-win-20120229-1u29p.html#ixzz1njzgPyXA
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 10:25 pm
@hingehead,
Until all the votes are counted we won't know delegates. Romney could win the state but not get the majority of the delegates.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 10:19 am
@parados,
This is from MSNBC First Read this morning
Quote:
*** The delegate battle: Here’s one final point about Michigan: NBC News can declare that Romney and Santorum have each won six of Michigan’s congressional districts, giving them 12 delegates. (And when you add the one at-large delegate each won, they stand at 13 each.) But there are two undecided districts (the 5th and 13th) -- one where Romney is leading by some 60 votes (with more to be counted), and one where Santorum is up some 40 votes. So, yes, it's still possible for Santorum to win more delegates in Michigan than Romney.


Romney still doesn't have 50% of the delegates that have been awarded so far. Until he reaches that 50% threshold this will keep going. It could come down to deals at the end for Gingrich or Paul to throw their delegates behind someone.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 10:39 am
@parados,
So it's possible that Romney squeezed out santorum?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 10:53 am
Reaction across the blogosphere has been pretty pessimistic for Romney, considering that he won both contests last night. He didn't have the win he needed in MI to change the 'super tuesday' story, which currently has Santorum and Gingrich leading in states that Romney would sure love to win.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 11:25 am
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/obamas-most-dangerous-gop-opponent-netanyahu.html

Sullivan thinks that Netenyahu is going to provoke a war with Iran before the election; and that it will be deadly to Obama either way.

Cycloptichorn
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 12:17 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Sullivan thinks that Netenyahu is going to provoke a war with Iran before the election; and that it will be deadly to Obama either way.


Obama is in a lose/lose situation with regard to Israel...no matter what. I am hoping the Netenyahu rhetoric is nothing more than saber rattling akin to what the Republicans are doing over here. If they attack...I do not care what Obama does...it will work against him.

That is why I mention to those people who are certain Obama will win big time in November--be careful...Israel/Iran could blow up in our faces and the economy could easily tank. We ARE in a up-tick right now, but it is fragile and narrowly focused.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 12:30 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Sullivan thinks that Netenyahu is going to provoke a war with Iran before the election; and that it will be deadly to Obama either way.


Obama is in a lose/lose situation with regard to Israel...no matter what. I am hoping the Netenyahu rhetoric is nothing more than saber rattling akin to what the Republicans are doing over here. If they attack...I do not care what Obama does...it will work against him.

That is why I mention to those people who are certain Obama will win big time in November--be careful...Israel/Iran could blow up in our faces and the economy could easily tank. We ARE in a up-tick right now, but it is fragile and narrowly focused.


What is he, or anyone, supposed to do about events that are beyond our control?

I believe Obama has shown no small ability to get in front of such events using rhetoric, though. I wouldn't be surprised if he did manage to navigate the shoals without wrecking the ship; in large part b/c a provoked war with Iran is going to shoot energy prices way, way up. People aren't going to like that one bit.

Cycloptichorn
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 12:37 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Who is certain?

I'm one of the people who has been saying for a long time that it looks very possible that he will win -- but I've always stopped well short of "certain." And (as I've said) the impossibility of knowing what elements may become a factor, and in what way, is a big reason why.

I'm not entirely sure that Israel acting would be completely against Obama, though. It would definitely be a tough spot. I hope it doesn't happen, (though more because I don't want Israel to provoke a war with Iran than because of implications for Obama's re-election).

But Americans have shown a disinclination to change presidents in the middle of a war -- experience becomes more of an issue then. They don't really want the inevitable upheaval + confusion that comes with a change of administrations.

And it also brings back the seriousness of what's at stake. While a core of Republican/ conservatives can't stand Obama and that's that, there are a lot of moderates who see him as the most serious candidate.

Meanwhile, liberals who would be pissed at him if he does anything (and he'd probably have to do something) would largely (I'm sure there would be exceptions) be even more worried about what Romney or Santorum or Gingrich would do if they inherit the situation.

Stupid Israel though. Fingers crossed that the rhetoric doesn't translate to action.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 12:52 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
What is he, or anyone, supposed to do about events that are beyond our control?


Truly nothing he can do with those two. The Republican candidates can talk all they want to about pro-active leadership on the issue, but my guess is ANYBODY in the Oval Office right now is forced to deal with whatever eventually happens in a REACTIVE manner. We do not control things here...the best we can do is to figure how best to react.

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 12:55 pm
@sozobe,
Sozobe...at this moment, I am much, much more concerned about the liberals who have gone ape-**** and claim they will not vote for Obama under any circumstances. I honestly think they have talked themselves into that position and it is now set in concrete. They will either stay home and not vote...or vote for a third party candidate...or (in a misguided way) for Ron Paul.

I think Obama's re-election chances are much more tenuous than most want to acknowledge. I HOPE I am wrong!!!!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 01:02 pm
Stupid, stupid Obama with his recent stance toward Israel. However, i'm not going to poke myself in the eye because i don't like what i see.
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 02:16 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Stupid, stupid Obama with his recent stance toward Israel. However, i'm not going to poke myself in the eye because i don't like what i see.


Shrug. They seem to be going out of their way to be the biggest assholes possible; what is the man supposed to do, just agree with them on everything, no matter whether they are right or wrong?

I wish we would simply sever our financial relationship with that country and be done with it - let them tend to themselves from now on, and leave us out of it!

Cycloptichorn
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 04:21 pm
The Michigan Primary Is Ancient History, But...
I was completely wrong about the turnout there. Instead of being down it was up by about 12% vs 2008. I think this was because of the amount of money being spent on advertising but it could certainly be due to greater concern by potential voters about the economy. Exit polling gave Romney a significant edge over Santorum on economic issues.
It appears that the Dems' threat to meddle in the Repub primary did not really materialize. Exit polls seem to show that 10% of the participants described themselves as Dems vs 7% in 2008 and 17% in 2000.
Romney won over Santorum 41% to 38% (and Paul/Gingrich at a combined 19%). In 2008, Romney beat McCain 39% to 30% (with Huckabee/Paul at 22%).
We have a long way to go but I think that Romney did decently last night.
I was closer on the delegates. I said 18-12 Santorum. I could be close on that.
On to Super Tuesday!
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 06:42 pm
@realjohnboy,
Three Percent

Quote:
...

Seriously, putting it bluntly, conservatives may not like Barack Obama, but most other people do. And when faced with a guy you like and a guy you don’t like who says he can fix an economy that no longer needs fixing, you’re going to go with the guy you like.

If Republicans in Washington are not panicked and trying desperately to pull Bobby Jindal in the race tomorrow, or someone like him, the party leaders must have a death wish.Mitt Romney continues to run an uninspiring campaign only able to win by massively outspending his opponents to tell voters how much worse the other guys are. That may work in the primary, but it will not work in a general election where the President of the United States won’t be outspent 5 to 1.

Three percentage points. In his home state. In his wife’s home state. In the state his father served as Governor. Three percentage points against a guy few took seriously two months ago and who just three weeks ago no one expected to give Romney a run for his money in Romney’s home state.

...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/30/2014 at 10:14:56