The Winding Road To The Republican Nomination For President

One big problem for Mitt is that many of his donors have maxed themselves out already - a problem Obama certainly doesn't have:



This could make it pretty difficult for him to maintain funding through the Summer and general election. Of course, he'll just have his rich-ass friends donate to his SuperPac anyway; but it should tie his hands a bit.

Cycloptichorn

OK... I just saw this title and planned to come in and say to whomever started it "Actually realjohnboy already has a thread on this topic," then was confused when I saw I'd be addressing that comment to realjohnboy.

Anyway.

Primary here on March 6th, definitely seeing a lot more of the candidates locally (Ohio if not Columbus much, yet).

I had a lot of fun going to Obama rallies in Columbus in 2007/2008, might try to catch a Republican rally or two just for the experience and first-hand data gathering (rather than getting it all through news sources). Will report back if I do.

I'll be awaiting your impressions.

Me, too. The Ohio Primary could be interesting. And, of course, the Buckeye state is listed as a tossup again this go 'round in the general election in November.

I thought Romney was being off cuff - and not too well. When he added the '...And I love cars' bit in my minds eye I could see that 'I like turtles' kid.

Stephen Colbert had a great line 'Michigan voters and Romney have a lot in common: they're both uncomfortable with Mitt Romney.'

I don't really have a sense of knowing core Romney - I suspect he's a pragmatist but he seems to be constantly projecting something his advisers say will get him elected. Like singing that song to Florida seniors - are they thinking if GWB was elected twice in they must like homespun dopey guys?

He still has a right to say that he finds the U.S. is in a dangerous spot. Just because someone isn't running does not take away that right.

Actually, I knew the second I saw this thread, it would be yet another prolonged
"bash the right, criticize the Republicans, Praise the Democrats"
bunch of nutbusting.

Can't say as how I am surprised.

Well,

- this is a topic for discussing the nominees for the GOP candidate for prez;
- the nominees for the prez on the GOP side this cycle are all complete douchebags (with the exception of Ron Paul, who is just sorta like a crazy uncle)
- therefore most of the discussion is going to be about what douchebag X did on day Y.

It's reality you're pissed at, man, not the people on this thread.

Cycloptichorn

Knock it off. You aren't the great soothsayer you wish to portray and proclaim yourself as being, Cycloptichorn.

The previous thread supposedly about Republican noms. etc, became an all out bashing of Republicans and praising of Democrats. Really no different than the thread started by the same person on "the 2012 Presidential Election"

I understand disagreements will occur on how things are done; but, to imply that a former candidate has no right to state their feelings about the state of the union is completely out there.

I believe I'm as entitled to Say as much Sooth as anyone else. It's up to the reader to judge whether or not my contributions have value. The vast majority of feedback I've received over the years on the subject would seem to suggest that many do.



I don't necessarily agree with this assessment; it seemed to me that the other thread collapsed under the weight of prolonged arguing about matters unrelated to the actual topic at hand.



The guy has a perfect right to say whatever he wants. However; that same right exists for us as well. And in this case, I feel perfectly comfortable stating that:

When someone points out that we have an existential problem, using very gloomy and negative imagery, but isn't willing personally to do a single goddamn thing about it, it's fair to conclude that they don't really think we have an existential problem after all, and are just running their mouth off for political gain.

I've noticed a lot of that on the GOP side this cycle - a lot of assertions that we are in some sort of 'make-or-break' moment, as a country, right now. It's pure idiocy and nothing more than an extension of their discomfort with Obama.

Cycloptichorn

Sturgis:
I agree with you about Cyclo's comment.
My fingerprints are on several political threads going back a few years. I am a Democrat but I try to be non-partisan in setting the things up. Of course, I can't control what people write or how off topic people become.
I have been on A2K since the beginning and it probably still has a liberal bias.
There is a reason for that, I think.

Maybe it is hyperbole, but the rhetoric from some is that this is the most important election in our history. Do you agree with that?
My comment about Mitch Daniels was that, if there are Republican leaders who sincerely believe that, shouldn't they step forward to ensure that Obama is defeated?
Thank you for participating.
RJB

I think that RJB has done a good job with all of his 2012 election threads. They have been torpedoed by arguments and personal attacks which have strayed very, very far from the topic at hand. I think that there has been as much Obama bashing as there has been bashing of Republican candidates. I'm glad RJB has started a new thread, and, it that's what it will take, i hope he'll have the courtesy to start yet another.

Thanks RJB, i've enjoyed the others until they imploded, and i have high hopes for this thread.

Just a reminder. The Repubs will debate Wenesday night in AZ. I see it as being on CNN at 8 pm ET. But you might want to confirm that.

Story of the day today, on the GOP side: is the Republican establishment trying to get rid of Santorum?

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/02/21/a-primer-for-the-media-and-i-agree-with-rick-santorum/

Cycloptichorn

At the risk of going off topic:



source

Guess he don't want to defend every word he has ever said since he didn't answer whether he believes the US is being attacked by Satan. Wonder what those forces are and in what manner he is ready to "take em' on."

That post is a good example of why politicians need to control their messages. "Somebody shut up my allies; they're killing me!"

He'll defend* everything he's ever said.






*And by "defend" he means "deflect."

There truly isn't an issue with you or in general your placing up new threads. Even this one, although as indicated bothers me because I have an unsettling feeling of how it will spin down into depths previously unknown. From what I have read, you are non-partisan at the thread creation and in fairness, your posts tend to be displays of facts, not the fiction which many pull into threads.

I could also see why it was necessary to begin this thread as the last one had become far too large a mess to contend with. I don't expect you you to control the contributors or force them to stay on topic. To me, that becomes a task of the membership. For me, it tends towards responding a handful of times when things are taken off track, then removing myself from the thread when it clear becomes that it is staying off track.

For the most part, I avoid political threads on any board, because every board I've ever landed at has had a majority leaning either one way or tother and the topic becomes mudslinging. I recently made 3 attempts to educate a poster on another board, he just kept repeating his same 4 paragraphs of glue trap catchings, and crowing how he'd gotten his information from wikipedia. At one point, myself and a few others, suggested a full Google search on the subject, mainly because there were dozens of news stories there which contradicted him. He would not be swayed, I left the topic, looked back in a few days later, he was still putting up the same paragraphs. Hey, whatever works for him.

Honestly, no. I believe every election is of equal importance as each election brings an opportunity for change. Change is important inasmuch as it keeps the area (whether it be town, city, county, state or country) in motion and each election brings some change even if only an infinitesimal nearly impossible to notice change.


My feeling is that Mr.Daniels is doing the only thing which he is capable of. He didn't believe he could continue along in the Primaries, or secure the nomination. All he has left is to explain his thoughts and belief that the nation is currently in grave danger, therefore a new body needs to be placed in the White House. This does not mean I agree with how he does it, his approach is far from persuasive to many. Even if he has valid ideas in what he is saying, his demeanor makes it difficult to pay him any mind. I have a similar view of NJ Governor Christie who as near as I can tell is infatuated with Romney and can say nothing nice about any other Republican candidate. Sad to see it, made worse due to the promise he (Christie), once seemed to hold.

That aside, I still believe he has the right to voice his ideas, whether or not he is still running. Same as you and myself he has that right. If that is taken from him, even as a former candidate, then how can either of us think we have the right to say the country needs A or B or even choice T?

As stated many times in the past, I am not a strong supporter of either party, I am registered as Democrat, have at times voted Republican. I take it according to candidate and what I can learn about them prior to election day.

Additionally, I am not a supporter of President Obama. I did not like him from the start. In 2008 I did not vote for him. Then again, I did not vote for his opponent, John McCain. Neither candidate seemed worthy or capable of handling the Presidency. This season, while not thrilled by President Obama, I am not truly satisfied with the remaining persons looking to unseat him. How bad is it? My top choice at present would be Newt Gingrich as the opponent to President Obama. Not to worry, I won't be voting for Mr.Gingrich, I simply feel he's the best the Republicans have to offer from their list. (It amazes me that they knew this election would be coming and they couldn't even scrape up a half-way decent candidate in the 2+ year window of opportunity they had after President Obama was elected).
Of course, I most likely won't vote for President Obama to have a second term. I say most likely won't, because there are scenarios where I'd show up at the polls (or submit an absentee ballot at the very least). When would that happen? If Ron Paul or Rick Santorrum gets the Republican nod.

Last up, yes, the Republican debate from Arizona, is tonight on CNN, 8:00P.M. Eastern time.

I believe the primary is a different election from the general election. So if Romney is the GOP nominee all those people will be able to give the max again after the convention.

Yes, but it's a lot better when candidates can carry over some of that money to the GE - Obama did a lot of that back in 2008. Romney won't be able to. Additionally, Romney has a few more months of grueling primary battles ahead of him (especially if he loses MI next week). He's going to have a pretty high burn rate during that whole time.

Cycloptichorn

I think the issue of donor fatigue migth matter, too. If someone gives the max in the primary season, are they going to want to give the max again for the national election? Will they feel they've done their part? Will they think it's someone else's turn to support the candidate? How many of those donations represent all the person concerned feels they can afford to give? I was unaware of the donor picture until you had posted that. I think it may prove to be significant.