68
   

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Forums: Politics, U S Politics, American Politics, Us Politics, G O P
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 05:37 am
@Lustig Andrei,
That's the most plausible suggestion i've yet heard on this subject.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 06:10 am
Quote:
Most of them probably voted for Houseman who came in an unexpectedly strong 3rd. But Romney, for them, is OK also.

It's kind of funny that Huntsman is still so obscure to people that this happens.

As to the point though, I think that anyone who votes for Romney because Obama wasn't liberal enough for them was not a liberal to begin with, or has lost their damn mind.
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 08:14 am
@snood,
Quote:
As to the point though, I think that anyone who votes for Romney because Obama wasn't liberal enough for them was not a liberal to begin with, or has lost their damn mind.


agreed
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 11:18 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

Are you serious? Some commentators I heard on NPR this morning estimated that a huge percentage of the vote in the NH primaries came from non-Republicans who registered to vote Republican just this one time, in the primaries. (There are a number of states, NH included, where you can do that and then, after the primary, re-register as an independent for the general elction.)

Why? Because any number of so-called and sometimes self-styled liberals are very unhappy with Barrack Obama. Since he will, no doubt, be the Democrat candidate in November, they're looking for an alternative. Most of them probably voted for Houseman who came in an unexpectedly strong 3rd. But Romney, for them, is OK also.

I don't think that these non-Republicans are necessarily liberal. They're moderates who voted for a more moderate Republican candidate.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 11:40 am
This is long, but man - is it ever brutal.



Thanks, Newt! The WH has to be chortling with glee over this.

Cycloptichorn
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 11:44 am
@snood,
snood wrote:

Quote:
Most of them probably voted for Houseman who came in an unexpectedly strong 3rd. But Romney, for them, is OK also.

It's kind of funny that Huntsman is still so obscure to people that this happens.

As to the point though, I think that anyone who votes for Romney because Obama wasn't liberal enough for them was not a liberal to begin with, or has lost their damn mind.


or they just aren't paying attention to the details

about 15 minutes a colleague asked me if I thought "Rumsfield was gonna get it?". What? Who? What? "you know, Rumsfield, he's on the cover of Time magazine. Is he going to get elected President?"

I had to go downstairs to look at the magazine cover.

Romney of course.

Romney/Rumsfeld, Houseman/Huntsman they're all the same to some people - and that includes people who vote Shocked
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 11:53 am
@InfraBlue,
My! My! The Secretary of State looked positively REGAL!! on the News just now. Who will have the thankless task of taking that Lady on in 2016?

It's odd how nothing would have troubled the airwaves had those guys merely killed the Taliban chaps and left it at that. Maybe dumping OBL's body in the Indian Ocean had something to do with it.

She's a star. Only last week she was blowing her hair out of her eyes and wiping her hands on her dungarees after mopping up a room full of dignitaries. Today she could have modelled for a Roman gold coin.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 02:26 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

Quote:
Most of them probably voted for Houseman who came in an unexpectedly strong 3rd. But Romney, for them, is OK also.

It's kind of funny that Huntsman is still so obscure to people that this happens.

As to the point though, I think that anyone who votes for Romney because Obama wasn't liberal enough for them was not a liberal to begin with, or has lost their damn mind.


I will cheerfully admit that I had never ever heard of Huntsman until he became a dark horse candidate. No wonder he's still so obscure that I actually get his name wrong.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 02:27 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Are you serious? Some commentators I heard on NPR this morning estimated that a huge percentage of the vote in the NH primaries came from non-Republicans who registered to vote Republican just this one time, in the primaries. (There are a number of states, NH included, where you can do that and then, after the primary, re-register as an independent for the general elction.)

Why? Because any number of so-called and sometimes self-styled liberals are very unhappy with Barrack Obama. Since he will, no doubt, be the Democrat candidate in November, they're looking for an alternative. Most of them probably voted for Houseman who came in an unexpectedly strong 3rd. But Romney, for them, is OK also.

I don't think that these non-Republicans are necessarily liberal. They're moderates who voted for a more moderate Republican candidate.


Actually, I have to agree with that, InfraBlue.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  3  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 02:54 pm
We Are Not In Iowa Or New Hampshire Anymore...
We are careening towards the South Carolina primary on Saturday, January 21st. 25 delegates will be at stake and SC uses a "winner takes all" approach to allocating delegates. SC would have had 50 delegates but they lost half of them by scheduling the primary ahead of the official Repub starting date.
SC's Repubs use an open primary, meaning that anyone (Repub, Dem, indy) can participate.
Besides the obvious factor of SC being bigger then IA or NH, it is different in many other ways. I'll get back to that in a bit.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 02:57 pm
@realjohnboy,
I used to know quite a bit about SC politics. But it's been some years since I had any reason to be interested or keep track.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 03:18 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Very informative. How many of the idiot electorate do you think will spend 30 minutes listening to this?
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 03:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Thank you for sharing. "A must see video. You gotta love capitalism. Wink
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 03:37 pm
@RABEL222,
It is sad that many people do not take the time to educate themselves.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 03:51 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Very informative. How many of the idiot electorate do you think will spend 30 minutes listening to this?


Very few. But, there are a lot of 30 or 60 second commercials that could be cut straight out of that thing.

Cycloptichorn
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 04:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
South Carolina will be the battle of the political super PACs.

Romney, Gingrich, and Huntsman, all have billionaires bankrolling their respective super PACs and they will saturate the airwaves with their paid ads. This is individual big money buying political campaigns because their spending is unrestricted.

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 04:07 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

South Carolina will be the battle of the political PACs.

Romney, Gingrich, and Huntsman, all have billionaires bankrolling their respective PACs and they will saturate the airwaves with their paid ads. This is individual big money buying political campaigns because their spending is unrestricted.




Thank god I live in nice, uncontested CA

Cycloptichorn
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 04:12 pm
@snood,
I'd bet John Houseman was a longtime liberal.
(He rejected our couch as a prop in one of his plays).
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 04:15 pm
@ossobuco,
Hold on. Is this the same John Houseman who is also an old-time actor? What the hell am I missing here?
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2012 04:17 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Thank god I live in nice, uncontested CA


Is it better though? I mean, that GOP candidates don't try in CA means that they tailor their platforms to anything but you. You don't get to be a factor to what they build on. Isn't it better to be in a bell weather state and have them fearful of what you may do?

Could have worded this better, but hopefully you get my idea.

A
R
T
 

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
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House
  3. » Page 234
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 04:45:34
▲ ▼