The tone-deaf nomination…
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Is the GOP primary going to be all about the anit-Paul versues the anti-Romney voter turnout?
People who vehemently oppose Obama should seriously consider strategy at this point.
There are obvious contenders and non contenders. The non contenders need to drop out and either get behind Paul or Romney.
Paul, I think, would be a better choice for the GOP because it would not only grow the party and thus its influence but also draw out the anti Obama dem and indie vote in the general election.[/quote]
You mean, they need to get behind Santorum. Paul is for confused progressives and libertarians. I realize you’re simply repeating the lastest Paul e-mail blast (it was, I saw it), but Paul isn’t a conservative. I’d no more vote for Paul than Romney.[/quote]
Rick, if the theory of evolution is true my life is meaningless, Santorum has about as much crossover appeal as David Duke.
Maybe less. [/quote]
Well, he certainly doesn’t get the junkie, conspiracy theorist, racialist, pimp vote. If you see Ron, ask him if he has any tips for getting ketchup stains out of whites. I imagine with keeping those robes and hoods clean, he must have some tips.[/quote]
If Paul only attracts the potheads and the KKK he has about twice the votes than Santorum will get outside the hardcore biblebelt vote. [/quote]
Nah, Santorum leads Paul. If Gingrich will drop, his support is automatically for Santorum, by and large. The not-Paul vote is gigantic.
I seem to remember that you were the one who told me that Santorum does not have the staying power to go all the way?
[/quote]
If I did, it was before he finally got money pouring in. Don’t remember that, though.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
No.
Don’t waste your time. Mainly because you are “seeing what YOU want to see” also.[/quote]
I used to not believe it years ago. And it was not so prevalent at that time. But facts don’t lie and I’m not twisting them either. You can click on the links if you like. But we can let it go no problem.
[quote]On to South Carolina.
It will be MUCH tougher for Romney in SC because SC is smack-dab in the middle of the Bible Belt. Will the fact that he is a Mormon weigh greater on these voters; or the fact that he can possibly beat the President?
Time will tell.
From personal experience, there are few things as powerful (at least to those who care) than going into that booth and casting that Vote. It’s literally as if every thing you’ve read or heard comes to a head when you pull that lever or punch that screen.[/quote]
Well put my friend.
[quote]Again…what will be the “most” “powerful and personal” consideration for the average GOP Voter’s of SC?
Will it be Romney, Santorum or “Other”?
We’ll see![/quote]
During different times I would agree with you regarding the Mormon thing not playing well in the Bible belt. But with the economy in the tubes (especially in places like SC) the voters have their attention planted firmly on the economy. Did you see the exit polling in NH? 67% of all the voters said that unemployment was their biggest concern. Second place was the national debt. Two of many economic issues that Obama is weak on. Mitt Romney is perceived as an astute business man and while I know it’s not cool to be wealthy when others are hurting, it doesn’t hurt to have the background that can improve the average citizen’s financial standing. Voters will look past his wealth and the politics of envy that Obama has promoted and give Romeny a chance to show them what he can do - I’d be very surprised if Romney didn’t win SC.
A few other comments:
As I’ve said on this very site Newt Gingrich’s mean-spirited campaigning will boomerang. And it’s looking like I was correct. His fourth place finish in New Hampshire and his low poll numbers in SC are an indication that what he’s doing is not working. If he was smarter than he is vindictive he would get off the negative campaigning toward fellow republicans and start talking about the Obama administration’s three years of failure. Honestly, I’ve always liked Newt but he’s got to get over this Ronmney tantrum.
Rick Perry will fall well below his own expectations in SC which may cause him to close up shop permanently. You don’t announce that you are going home and need time to think, like he did after his Iowa loss, and expect to come back and be considered serious. Ross Perot did that in the general election in 1992. In fact, he dropped out and came back in and still won 19% of the vote. Some say if he hadn’t had that brain fart that he would have beaten both Bush and Clinton. But we’ll never know. What we do know is that a leader doesn’t do what Perry did. He’s done!
Huntsman will flounder in SC or as they say in Chinese, “Qua Pia Cing” (sorry I just can’t help myself). He spent all his money and time in NH skipping Iowa and he only came in a distant third. And that is a far friendlier state to his style of politics than is SC. I see no reason for him to do better than last place. Nor was I surprised that Paul beat him in NH.
Ron Paul, will have another credible finish as SC allows independents to vote in their primary. So once again he will split those with Romney. I think it will be a battle between he and Santorum for second place. Especially if Gingrich continues down the path of self-destruction. But as I’ve said for years, Paul is unelectable to the general population, that is those people who start paying attention around Halloween.
Rick Santorum could be the guy to beat Romney in SC if anyone is going to do it as these are truly his people. He will be preaching to the choir as they say. On the flip side of that if he doesn’t take first place or a strong second he is absolutely finished! As he will never bounce back in Florida, a state the skews old demographically and a state that Romney is likely to wrap up the nomination in terms of others being considered serious contenders. After Florida, they go on to Nevada, Main, Colorado and Minnesota all by February 7th. Santorum needs SC to show that he can win. And as I’ve said these are his people. So, while the press is not reporting it because they want to keep you watching forever if Santorum doesn’t do well here the obituary for his campaign should be written.
That’s my take on things Mufasa—Over to you!
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
After my last “fiasco” (I “predicted” McCain/Palin to win after the GOP convention)[/quote]
Told you…told you…told you! Okay that was not mature sorry.
Right you are. And moreover cross party polling at this point is totally useless. I have never seen a cross party poll at this early date that had any accuracy to it. I recall that Bush was destroying Clinton in one cross party poll and look what happened. They also had both Gore beating Bush in 2000 And Kerry beating him as well in 2004. Don’t even waste your time looking at that nonsense.
[quote]Ron Paul as VP to Romney?
I don’t think EITHER man would give it a serious consideration.
Mufasa[/quote]
You got that right!
Romeny would never run with Paul as VP. Romney needs to balance the ticket and Paul doesn’t do that. As we’ve talked about Rubio (if he’s eligible), maybe Santorum. Perhaps a Latino woman? someone who can bring a state with many electoral votes that the republicans need to win. Now after election a cabinet post for Paul is a possibility, but who knows if he’d even take it? I think the old guy likes running for President Ha…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Is the GOP primary going to be all about the anit-Paul versues the anti-Romney voter turnout?
People who vehemently oppose Obama should seriously consider strategy at this point.
There are obvious contenders and non contenders. The non contenders need to drop out and either get behind Paul or Romney.
Paul, I think, would be a better choice for the GOP because it would not only grow the party and thus its influence but also draw out the anti Obama dem and indie vote in the general election.[/quote]
I think orion addressed that earlier in a different thread , GOP acts like they embrace Pauls point of view but clearly do not and a lot of so called liberals love that the Republicans show their hypocrisy . I personally love seeing the blatant, glaring hypocrites that the Republican are, excluding Dr. Paul and I am really happy an intelligent person is espousing the idiocy of the war on drugs and the enormous cost of world domination
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The tone-deaf nomination…
http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/[/quote]
Oh Boy!
This is FASCINATING!
A Newt supporting PAC…putting out a film that sounds like something that “Occupy” or the DEMS would put out!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The tone-deaf nomination…
http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/[/quote]
Oh Boy!
This is FASCINATING!
A Newt supporting PAC…putting out a film that sounds like something that “Occupy” or the DEMS would put out!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Mufasa[/quote]
It’s all part of the ‘game.’
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The tone-deaf nomination…
http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/[/quote]
Oh Boy!
This is FASCINATING!
A Newt supporting PAC…putting out a film that sounds like something that “Occupy” or the DEMS would put out!
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Mufasa[/quote]
This will not only sink Newt’s candidacy, but also possibly a chance for him to play a meaningful role in the republican party for the rest of his carrier.
Hey, when you outspend your competitor 20:1 on negative, ads you’re going to piss someone off. 96% of all negative ads since Iowa were aimed at Newt…Mitt attacked Perry from the left, also. Remember the Soc Sec deal? Perry is in SC giving a bit of payback with what money he still has left. As Romney said, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If they’re willing to do this country a solid, they’ll tear down Romney’s aura of electability in SC, and then drop out just prior, endorsing Santorum! He’d steamroll into Florida, and conservatives would have pony in this race for sure. Perry and Ginrich folks would vote Santorum for sure. Mitt burned those bridges.
Those are what’s flying out in SC and Florida. Let the super-pac primary really begin, finally!
“…That’s my take on things Mufasa—Over to you!..”
Sure thing, Zeb!
When I talk about South Carolinians, I almost “have” to get a little “philosophical”, Zeb.
Since before, and certainly during, the Civil War; South Carolinians developed a reputation of being extremely independent in thought and action. In other words, no one…and I mean NO one tells them (as a whole) what to do OR think. As one friend told me, South Carolinians are (in order):
#1 South Carolinians
#2 Gamecocks or Tigers then
#3 Everything else!
Sure…it was a “little” tongue-in-cheek…but not far off. And their independence explains clearly why a “Deep Southern” State would Vote a Woman who is the child of Sikh Immigrants from Punjab, India as their Governor. (Yes…a Palin endorsement helped; as well as the Sanford fiasco and “splitting” of votes among the electorate)…but it also shows how South Carolinians are not “pushed” to do what is “expected”.
So; what does this say about the SC Primary? (IMO)
- Romney “wins”; but not by expected margins.
While the President would NEVER be considered a “favored Son” in SC (except among many Black Voters)…Romney most likely comes off about as well-liked as William Tecumseh Sherman.
Putting one “Sum-Bitch” against another “Sum-Bitch”…South Carolinians hold their nose and Romney wins.
- Second?
Tough call, because I would call South Carolinians (as a whole) “Conservative Libertarians” (a Judge Napolitano term) in many ways. Santorum comes in second…but it’s close between him and Ron Paul.
- Third?
Everyone else is in single digits, including “fellow” Southerner Rick Perry.
That’s my take!
Fire away!
Mufasa
(P.S. The pic is of South Carolina’s “favorite son” and Brother Push’s favorite General of all time!)
For me, Newt is in a category by himself.
While I don’t think that he will be in single digits; he certainly will not get the number’s of Romney or Santorum/Paul.
Also; his “Occupy-Like” ads and attacks will NOT help him in any way.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…That’s my take on things Mufasa—Over to you!..”
Sure thing, Zeb!
When I talk about South Carolinians, I almost “have” to get a little “philosophical”, Zeb.
Since before, and certainly during, the Civil War; South Carolinians developed a reputation of being extremely independent in thought and action. In other words, no one…and I mean NO one tells them (as a whole) what to do OR think. As one friend told me, South Carolinians are (in order):
#1 South Carolinians
#2 Gamecocks or Tigers then
#3 Everything else!
Sure…it was a “little” tongue-in-cheek…but not far off. And their independence explains clearly why a “Deep Southern” State would Vote a Woman who is the child of Sikh Immigrants from Punjab, India as their Governor. (Yes…a Palin endorsement helped; as well as the Sanford fiasco and “splitting” of votes among the electorate)…but it also shows how South Carolinians are not “pushed” to do what is “expected”.
So; what does this say about the SC Primary? (IMO)
- Romney “wins”; but not by expected margins.
While the President would NEVER be considered a “favored Son” in SC (except among many Black Voters)…Romney most likely comes off about as well-liked as William Tecumseh Sherman.
Putting one “Sum-Bitch” against another “Sum-Bitch”…South Carolinians hold their nose and Romney wins.
- Second?
Tough call, because I would call South Carolinians (as a whole) “Conservative Libertarians” (a Judge Napolitano term) in many ways. Santorum comes in second…but it’s close between him and Ron Paul.
- Third?
Everyone else is in single digits, including “fellow” Southerner Rick Perry.
That’s my take!
Fire away!
Mufasa
(P.S. The pic is of South Carolina’s “favorite son” and Brother Push’s favorite General of all time!)[/quote]
I like your take on things. I do see Santorum finishing a strong second. As I said if not in SC then where?
As for Gingrich,
The worst thing that could happen to him is if his ads actually work and here’s why:
Gingrich is NOT going to be the nominee he’s now being noted for being the bad guy in running so many negativ ads. There is no escaping that reputation. If he tarnishes Romney enough for Obama to win a second term and the republican party feels that Gingrich is responsible his name will be mud in republican circles for a long time to come. This costs him money, prestige and a whole bunch of other things as he will be persona non grata with the party that he claims to love so much. And that is sad indeed.
But, that’s what we’ve come to expect with Gingrich he has a self-destruct button and he pushes it repeatedly when he’s upset. You don’t flush two marriages down the drain and a Speakership because you are a clear headed logical thinker. He’s an emotional rollercoaster and these anti Romney ads will cost him greatly should they help Obama to a second term. Now to those who don’t understand the meaning of the word “win” that doesn’t matter. But to those of us who are tired of Obamanomics and know what is in store if he has four more years of rule unchecked by the electorate well that’s a very bad thing. And I can already hear the now repetitive Gingrich lament “I do regret those ads but in the heat of battle you do things that you sometimes regret.”
Bottom line Romney still gets the nomination. And those who don’t like it can either sit on their hands or go all the way in and vote for a second helping of hope and change.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If he tarnishes Romney enough for Obama to win a second term and the republican party feels that Gingrich is responsible his name will be mud in republican circles for a long time to come. This costs him money, prestige and a whole bunch of other things as he will be persona non grata with the party that he claims to love so much. And that is sad indeed.
[/quote]
Nope, it’ll tarnish National Review and other ‘conservative’ dens. They should’ve vetted their candidate (yes, he is their candidate) better, and recognized their tone-deafness in carrying water for Romney (with a few exceptions) in this environment. If Newt could tarnish him for a few million dollars with this, Obama will destroy him.
Almost everyone knew (or SHOULD have known), that this “Favorite, Worldly Professor”/ALL of us on this Stage have one Goal…beat Barack Obama" was a “We Are Family” facade that would not hold for long.
Piss Newt off; or give him a Blow Job…and he was bound to go off the edge.
“Volatility” is his middle name.
Mufasa
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If Newt could tarnish him for a few million dollars with this, Obama will destroy him.[/quote]
As I said it is how the party, including those millions who support Romney will look at Gingrich. And I assure you it will not be favorable. He is tarnishing the front runner not to win but to do damage–I think it can best be defined as spite. When you are running a campaign, not to win, but to harm another candidate well you can get what you want in the short -term. But he will pay for these actions the rest of his life in many ways. And THAT is how the game is played!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If Newt could tarnish him for a few million dollars with this, Obama will destroy him.[/quote]
As I said it is how the party, including those millions who support Romney will look at Gingrich. And I assure you it will not be favorable. He is tarnishing the front runner not to win but to do damage–I think it can best be defined as spite. When you are running a campaign, not to win, but to harm another candidate well you can get what you want in the short -term. But he will pay for these actions the rest of his life in many ways. And THAT is how the game is played!
[/quote]
Agree 100%.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Almost everyone knew (or SHOULD have known), that this “Favorite, Worldly Professor”/ALL of us on this Stage have one Goal…beat Barack Obama" was a “We Are Family” facade that would not hold for long.
Piss Newt off; or give him a Blow Job…and he was bound to go off the edge.
“Volatility” is his middle name.
Mufasa[/quote]
Like I said you don’t become a disgraced Speaker Of The House and suffer two failed marriages because you have your act together. But a part of me understands that ego is what drives most of these guys, the ones I like and the ones I don’t like so much.