Another win for our future nominee Mitt Romney as he more than doubles Newt Gingrich. Ron Paul who finished second in Nevada four years ago could only muster a third place finish. And Rick Santorum finished a disappointing fourth.
There might be some changes by the time 100% of the votes are counted but I highly doubt that it will change the rankings.
Read more: Romney wins Nevada GOP caucuses, Fox News projects
What a disgrace.
Edit: Turn out down. IS Romney even going to his '08 share of the vote?
Not at all a disgrace. Mitt Romney is as logical a candidate as any of them. You think Gingrich is more conservative than Romney? Think again…And while Santorum IS more conservative than Romney I doubt his campaign will get enough traction in the time left.
Turnout in 2008 was 44,000. This year? 32,894…
…Notably, 52 percent in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, say the more they hear about Romney the less they like him - double the number who like him more…
…Based on his roughly 14 percent tax rate on 2010 income of about $22 million, the public by a broad 66-30 percent says Romney is not paying his fair share of taxes; even nearly half of Republicans say so, as do half of very conservative Americans…
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=15519812#.TzAHnfk7x8H
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Turnout in 2008 was 44,000. This year? 32,894…
That says a lot of things, not the least of which could be that in the minds of many of the primary voters it is a forgone conclusion that Romney will be the nominee. Or, 20% that didn’t turn out this time around couldn’t care less who the nominee is as long as they get to vote out Obama.
Based on his roughly 14 percent tax rate on 2010 income of about $22 million, the public by a broad 66-30 percent says Romney is not paying his fair share of taxes; even nearly half of Republicans say so, as do half of very conservative Americans…[/quote]
And that’s because it was not explained to the general pubic (yet) what “capital gains” taxes are compared to regular income taxes. In fact, Romney paid the top rate when the money was originally earned. And now that it has been invested he is paying on it a second time and that rate is lower than regular income tax. But you know all this, you’re just using this material to run Romney into the ground. Taking the left’s side in order to tarnish a republican candidate…NICE! Sure you’re not a Gingrich fan?
It’s interesting how while Obama cannot beat us but we will in the end beat ourselves.
But you keep pushing for that ideal candidate and we can talk again in four years about what a good idea that was!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Turnout in 2008 was 44,000. This year? 32,894…
[/quote]
Most notable to me was the bigotry of the Mormon voters in Nevada.
According to exit polls, Mormons made up 30% of the Republican voters and voted 90% for Romney.
Without this lock-step bigoted voting (akin to Obama over Hillary with blacks voting 90% for Obama), Romney would have lost or tied with Newt.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Turnout in 2008 was 44,000. This year? 32,894…
[/quote]
Most notable to me was the bigotry of the Mormon voters in Nevada.
According to exit polls, Mormons made up 30% of the Republican voters and voted 90% for Romney.
Without this lock-step bigoted voting (akin to Obama over Hillary with blacks voting 90% for Obama), Romney would have lost or tied with Newt.[/quote]
And what happened in Florida and New Hampshire?
There’s always a reason(s) that someone wins did you notice that?
-Money
-Better debate performance
-More, (or less) conservative area
-The recession hurt one area more than another
The list is endless. This time around Mormons helped Romney–Yet he would have won anyway if you take out the Mormon vote. So what’s your point? That Mormon’s vote for Mormon’s? I’m SHOCKED!
Did you know that most people vote for someone that is “like” them, or that shares their particular views? It can anything from religion to nationality.
The real story, one you are probably not aware of, is that Romney won evangelicals by a good margin! Now that is interesting because it would seem that they’d vote for Santorum who is a good Christian man. Yet they voted for Romney. And do you know why they voted for Romney? According to polling they voted for him because they think that he’s more likely to beat Obama than the other candidates.
His team must be sensing a Santorum surge. The attack machine has begun to turn it’s eyes upon Santorum. In response to Romney emails attacking Santorum, Santorum’s reply.
"If Governor Romney were confident running on his record and his vision for the future, he would,? said Santorum communications director Hogan Gidley in a statement. “But Gov. Romney does what he always does and directs his well-funded attack machine to destroy the opponent. Mitt Romney’s act is tired, old and wearing thin with voters and I suspect at this point, with the media too. Romney never touts his own record–because it’s abysmal. In the Republican Party we have a name for someone who supports government healthcare mandates, big bank bailouts, and radical cap and trade initiative–we call them Democrats.”
Ha! Romney has increased his unfavorables and turned off voters (low turnout where he has won) through his multi-million dollar carpet-bombing machince (Think it was 19 million dollars in Fl, alone…). Is he trying to set a new low voter turnout record among republicans? It might very well pay off for the primaries, but it’ll seal his fate as a loser against Obama. He’s quickly turning into Flip-Flop progressive Mitt, bullying his way to the nomination. Where a significant portion of the base will gladly stay home on election night, disgusted by his presence at the head of the ticket. But Santorum is right, Romney can’t run on his record. His is story of not selling himself to republicans enthused by him, but of destruction. Keeping the not-Romney unsure. Again, it can win a nomination, but it’ll dang sure cost him the election. Burning bridges, burning bridges.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
His team must be sensing a Santorum surge. The attack machine has begun to turn it’s eyes upon Santorum.[/quote]
Attack machine? (eye roll)
Hey Sloth this is how campaign’s are waged. You say good things about your candidate and bad things about the other guys. Come on man…
[quote]But Santorum is right, Romney can’t run on his record. His is story of not selling himself to republicans enthused by him, but of destruction. Keeping the not-Romney unsure. Again, it can win a nomination, but it’ll dang sure cost him the election. Burning bridges, burning bridges.
[/quote]
He’s had many good things to say about his record. He lowered taxes 19 times as Governor of Massachusetts. But when you are in a hard fought campaign you run negative ads. You act like you’ve never seen this before. But that’s how the game is played. You know the game you don’t like. But did you notice that you’re not nearly as upset (not upset at all) when someone runs a negative ad on Romney. So I don’t think it’s the game you don’t, what you don’t like is when the guy you want is losing the game.
In 2008 the Obama people were scrambling because Hillary questioned Obama’s experience and ran an add about a phone ringing at 3:00 AM and having someone there with experience to pick it up. She questioned everything about him and their were ticked off. But now she’s Secretary of State. That is how politics works.
And when Santorum is Secretary of State or holds some other cabinet position under Romney I’ll remind you of your many posts. That is of course if Romney gets lucky enough to beat Obama.
Whether the guy wins the general election or not this party will unite under one candidate Sloth mark my words!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You think Gingrich is more conservative than Romney? Think again…[/quote]
Games? Must we?
It is definitely a lock for Romney so all you liberal Democrats like ZEB who are crossing over and voting in the Republican primaries can stay home now. Mission accomplished and don’t forget to pick up your “stipends” from your local ACORN office
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You think Gingrich is more conservative than Romney? Think again…[/quote]
Games? Must we?
[/quote]
I almost missed this post I was sitting with Nancy Pelosi and crying about global warming—no wait that wasn’t me IT WAS NEWT!
Want more?
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
It is definitely a lock for Romney [/quote]
Yeah it does doesn’t it?
Bother you much?
HA HA
Zeb,
Do you work for Romney?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You think Gingrich is more conservative than Romney? Think again…[/quote]
Games? Must we?
[/quote]
I almost missed this post I was sitting with Nancy Pelosi and crying about global warming—no wait that wasn’t me IT WAS NEWT!
Want more?[/quote]
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Turnout in 2008 was 44,000. This year? 32,894…
[/quote]
Most notable to me was the bigotry of the Mormon voters in Nevada.
According to exit polls, Mormons made up 30% of the Republican voters and voted 90% for Romney.
Without this lock-step bigoted voting (akin to Obama over Hillary with blacks voting 90% for Obama), Romney would have lost or tied with Newt.[/quote]
Ummmmm…
thethirdruffian;
“Bigotry”…both in the case of the Black vote FOR Obama and the Mormon vote FOR Romney is (IMO) the wrong word. In other words, “bigotry” implies some form of intolerance, prejudice and/or animosity toward someone or some group. And that just isn’t true in either case.
In the case of the President, you can be assured that black votes are “for” him. And in the case of Hillary, were most certainly NOT “against” her. In fact, in black circles, Bill is considered the “first Black President”, and this transferred to Hillary. There absolutely was no bigotry or animosity toward Hillary.
I think that the same can be said for the Mormon voters (I have a few whom are good friends). I doubt very seriously that they went into those booths thinking anything about Newt or Santorum…but about voting “FOR” Romney.
Just my thoughts!
Mufasa
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
It is definitely a lock for Romney [/quote]
Yeah it does doesn’t it?
Bother you much?
HA HA
[/quote]
Yes, unfortunately it does. A lot. Still hoping for a Santorum Surge. Surge, Baby, Surge
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Turnout in 2008 was 44,000. This year? 32,894…
[/quote]
Most notable to me was the bigotry of the Mormon voters in Nevada.
According to exit polls, Mormons made up 30% of the Republican voters and voted 90% for Romney.
Without this lock-step bigoted voting (akin to Obama over Hillary with blacks voting 90% for Obama), Romney would have lost or tied with Newt.[/quote]
Ummmmm…
thethirdruffian;
“Bigotry”…both in the case of the Black vote FOR Obama and the Mormon vote FOR Romney is (IMO) the wrong word. In other words, “bigotry” implies some form of intolerance, prejudice and/or animosity toward someone or some group. And that just isn’t true in either case.
In the case of the President, you can be assured that black votes are “for” him. And in the case of Hillary, were most certainly NOT “against” her. In fact, in black circles, Bill is considered the “first Black President”, and this transferred to Hillary. There absolutely was no bigotry or animosity toward Hillary.
I think that the same can be said for the Mormon voters (I have a few whom are good friends). I doubt very seriously that they went into those booths thinking anything about Newt or Santorum…but about voting “FOR” Romney.
Just my thoughts!
Mufasa
[/quote]
At 90%? His Mormonism wasn’t significant? Honestly, I don’t care. But let’s not get our pantaloons in a twist if evangelicals strongly lean towards evangelicals, then.
Read my post, Sloth.
I didn’t say it wasn’t significant…I said it wasn’t bigoted.
And Evangelicals have made it VERY clear; and for many years; what they think about Romney’s faith. So that’s not even a debatable issue.
Mufasa
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Razorslim wrote:
It is definitely a lock for Romney [/quote]
Yeah it does doesn’t it?
Bother you much?
HA HA
[/quote]
Yes, unfortunately it does. A lot. Still hoping for a Santorum Surge. Surge, Baby, Surge
[/quote]
What should really bother you is the thought of Obama as President for another four years. I’d take any of the republicans over him. Yet, while I think Romney has the best chance of beating him I doubt that he will.