Romney Set to Dominate Tuesday’s Primaries
Whatever the outcome of Tuesday’s primaries in Wisconsin, Maryland, and the District of Columbia turns out to be, it’s time for Rick Santorum to call it quits. He’s had his day in the sun; he’s shown that he can compete on the national stage; and he’s rehabilitated his sagging political career. Now it’s time for him to fold up his tent and go home, or he risks losing the credibility and goodwill that he has created.
Going into the April 3 primaries, Romney has 568 GOP delegates compared to Santorum’s 273. To win the GOP nomination, Romney has to win about 46% of the remaining delegates, and Santorum needs to win more than 70% of them. Although it’s not mathematically impossible for Santorum to win the nomination, the probability of him winning is rapidly approaching zero, especially when you factor into the equation the latest polling data.
The most recent NBC News/Marist poll shows Romney leading Santorum in Wisconsin by 7 points — 40% to 33%. If that lead stands, he’ll get all of Wisconsin’s 42 delegates. The latest Rasmussen poll shows Romney leading Santorum in Maryland by 17 points — 45% to 28%. If that lead holds, he’ll pick up all of Maryland’s 37 delegates. A few days ago, Romney won a straw poll in D.C. with 72% of the vote while Santorum got just 8.1%. Although he has virtually ignored D.C., Romney will win all of the District’s 16 delegates. As you can see, the math doesn’t look good for Santorum going into Tuesday’s primaries, but it will look worse, much worse on Wednesday morning.
Thankfully, Santorum has softened his approach a bit lately and is beginning to focus more of his attention on President Obama, but that’s not enough. He’s becoming a distraction and a problem, and he’s helping to make what promises to be a challenging fall campaign even rougher for Mitt Romney. Santorum continues to make biting remarks about Romney despite the fact that it’s becoming obvious to almost everyone except Santorum that Romney will be the GOP nominee. According to the New York Times,
He [Santorum] still reserves plenty of derision for Mr. Romney, mocking him repeatedly as the “Etch A Sketch” candidate whose conservative values are malleable and insincere.”
Mitt Romney said he had Progressive views in 2002, he governed as a Progressive Republican during his one-term stint as governor of Massachusetts, his popularity ratings in Massachusetts indicated that he could not win a second term as governor, in 2008, he lost to the Progressive Republican John McCain (who lost to Obama), and his current campaign has produced numerous sound bites that indicate that he is still a Progressive. Exactly why should we shut down the Republican primary for this man? In politics, he is a proven loser.
Mitt Romney did not govern as a progressive in MA despite the fact the legislatures there were 85% Democrat. He used his veto pen 800 times. He inherited a deficit and ran 4 straight surpluses. The unbelievably successful venture capitalist is a a true problem solver who understands business and the economy. Sane conservatives need to get behind his candidacy now so that he can give the community organizer the a$$ whipping he deserves.
Romney will make a great President. He will govern as conservatively as he can.
Well said, Terry!
Romney is another Harvard bred man. Superior in every way. The most qualified people come from Harvard. They make the greatest Presidents. Make room on Mt. Rushmore.
I appreciate we will NOT be hearing about obiwon’s supposed harvard law school creditials – of which all grades/scores have been placed under seal by his very first act as president. romeny also attended harvard law – so it will shut up the obamabots. romeny concurrantly attended harvard business school. he graduated both with distincition.
to never hear again how brilliant obmam was because he attended harvard law (with no release of grades or transcripts to back up his claims). oh the silence is wonderful.
“it’s hurting the GOP’s likely nominee at a time when he should be devoting all of his time and attention to overcoming President Obama’s double-digit lead in the polls. Targeting Romney’s conservatism under these circumstances makes no sense.”
So, we should pretend that Romney is true blue, “severe” conservative, because he tells us he is on the advise of campaign counsel, even though there is not much in the record to affirm that.
Santorum runs an ad that shows Romney to be as bad as Obama, policywise. How about you confute that, rather than repining like that Chris Christie groupie we’re seeing all over Fox News nowadays.
How about you confute that
What? lol
I think he meant ‘refute’, do you not get that, or do you know that you and Romney cannot defend his record..
Santorum is obviously a demagogue with frightening ties to previous crowd pleasers. I wrote about his faux working class connection here: http://clarespark.com/2012/04/02/touch-me-touch-me-not/. The focus should be on policy as proposed today, not dwelling on past positions.
It’s pretty obvious that Romney has the nomination locked up, but that doesn’t mean that the other candidates will stop running.
Santorum is running as the concience of the party. He may well choose to continue to run after he is eliminated to remind Romney and the Republican elite of the people who actually are conservative. I am disappointed that it wasn’t Michele Bachmann in this role, but she still needs some experience and seasoning. Perhaps 2016 will be better for her. Santorum deserves some praise for showing that a candidate can still win primaries and be viable without a lot of money. If Santorum does quit the race it will probably be after he wins in Pennsylvania. It’s always nice to go out a winner.
Ron Paul too will probably keep campaining. I disagree with Dr. Paul on many issues, but he’s no fool and he knew going in that he wouldn’t win. Dr. Paul has something to say on many issues that nobody else seems to want to talk about. He’ll continue to score his 10% or so right up until the convention. He can’t win, but he can start a dialogue.
I have no idea why Newt Gingrich is still running.
Santorum comes across as angry and tightly wound. He has extreme views concerning the right of government to interfere with our personal liberty. He isn’t a conservative. He’s said that what goes on in the bedroom is the government’s business.
He’s a big government guy who has no compunctions about imposing his extreme views and he has a history of making extreme statements, which he then has to walk back. I cannot see him causing many Independents or conservative Democrats to vote GOP. He would be a net negative on the campaign trail. It’s embarrassing that he’s the last ABR.
The nomination is over. In addition to taking all 3 WTA states tonight Romney will win NY, CT, RI, and DE on the 24th and will stand a good chance of winning PA on that day for a clean sweep. If Romney wins WI, as well as MD and DC tonight, I predict that Santorum will drop out before April 24th rather than risk losing in his home state and thus rendering himself irrelevant.
Gingrich on the other hand is a fabulous impromptu speaker who can help the conservative cause if he puts on his happy face and wholeheartedly supports Mitt.
“The nomination is over”
That is false, isn’t it?
That is false, isn’t it?
Depends on your definition.
If the nomination is over when only one candidate can win, then it is not false to say that it is over. Santrorum cannot win. Gingrich cannot win. Only Romney can win.
If you mean to say “Santrorum can continue to launch bitter attacks on Romney right up to the point where Romney gets his 1144th delegate, and even after if he likes” then you are correct in that. He can do whatever he likes, even endorse Obama over Santorum.
But the battle for the Republican nomination is over.
When the chips were down Gingrich sided with Pelosi in torpedoing American jobs all to suck up to enviros. He lent them credibility.
So too did Romney but he somehow managed not to get on Pelosi’s couch. Possibly because he wasn’t important enough.
Rick Perry, much maligned as not being so glib and facile as the others, stood up for us. So too did Sanctorum. although its not clear to me if he thinks jobs are more important than stamping out brain damage caused by naked pictures on the internet.
And this is where we are.
and when the chips were down, santorum repeatedly voted to support the union powers AGAINST the workers.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/
That’s easy. In the event Romney doesn’t win the first ballot, he will likely not be the nominee.
In that even, it is plausible enough once Romney delegates will find Newt preferable to Santorum, the Newt does win.
Sine it is not plausible that Ron Paul can say the same thing, the question is why is he still in.
That’s easy. In the event Romney doesn’t win the first ballot, he will likely not be the nominee.
In that even, it is plausible enough once Romney delegates will find Newt preferable to Santorum, the Newt does win.
You really are quite insane.
If Gingrich does not win on the first ballot, enough of his delegates will find Romney preferable to Santorum to put him over the top.
The notion that the frontrunner will drop out and cede the field to the man in a distant third place is just pathetic.
I don’t care; I will still vote for Santorum. I WILL NOT coalesce around Romney!
So, if Romney gets the nomination you won’t vote for him in the general election?
The Story of Your Enslavement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A&feature=related
To reiterate, I’m expecting Mitt Romney to be the nominee, but I refuse to be happy about it.
The Santorum Surge has had almost nothing to do with Santorum, but with loathing Mitt Romney.
It would be extremely helpful if writers supporting Romney would stop writing “inevitability” columns like this and start writing columns that tell me why I should vote FOR Romney without using the words: Obama, inevitable, delegate count, or independents.
I don’t trust him and think he’s an extremely weak candidate. Based on Romneycare alone he should have never been the choice of the GOP establishment to begin with. Couple that with a horrible win/loss record and a record of Progressive governance, it makes him a terrible candidate with specific terminal flaws in what should be a slam dunk election for the GOP. Rick Santorum, for all of his many mistakes, is absolutely correct when he says that Romney is a “uniquely disqualified” candidate.
I’ll vote for him in November if I must, but PLEASE don’t expect me to cheer lead.
It would be extremely helpful if writers supporting Romney would stop writing “inevitability” columns like this and start writing columns that tell me why I should vote FOR Romney
You should vote for Romney because he is the Republican candidate who will be on the ballot against Obama in November and because he is far, far superior to Obama.
What part of this are you NOT getting?
If you’d read the post, you’d see that that’s what I intend to do.
This is the last “hold my nose election”. The GOP no longer effectively represents my views and values. I’m sure that right about now you’re snickering and thinking “Yeah, we’ll see in 2016. They always say this.”
I’m sure you think I’m being a “brat” about it.
But it’s not a threat, it’s a fact. If the GOP wishes to entrench itself as a permanent opposition party, they can do it without my help.
Sayonara. Time for the GOP to go the way of the Whig.
Agreed. McCain was a slap in the face in 2008 and I don’t see Romney as being much better. If Romney doesn’t deliver in terms of rolling back Obama’s excesses, dismantling Obamacare and all those czars and getting spending under control, then why bother voting Republican?
That said, my Representative is doing just fine and I’m pleased with him. But Romney?
If you’d read the post, you’d see that that’s what I intend to do.
I’m not sure what the point is in writing a comment demanding that you be told “why I should vote FOR Romney” if you already know the answer.
I voted for Bush. Twice. I held my nose the second time. But if I was in the same situation again, I’d do it all over again. Because for all his many flaws, we did get Roberts and Alito out of the deal.
Worse case scenario, Romney is another Bush. Right now I’ll take that over another four years of Obama.
There has been no “Santorum Surge”.
The best way of “hurting the GOP’s likely nominee” is to for the GOP’s base to cut him an ideological blank check and allow him to campaign unbeholden to and uninfluenced by any of their priorities. Ultimately, it’s doing Romney no favors to let him run as a pure financial technocrat, unmoored to any of the values that actually undergird fiscal conservatism.
True, it’s late for Romney to still be weathering these attacks, but it’s not because of the other candidates’ intransigence–it’s because the primary voters strongly detect he’s an empty suit. Otherwise, Santorum wouldn’t have the power to hurt him. And if the primary voters can sense Romney’s jejuneness, so will the general-election voters.
So it’s not the stubbornness of Santorum & Gingrich that’s tiresome. One keeps hoping that before the convention, Romney will start absorbing some lessons & ideas that would make him a more credible November candidate, and take the sting out of Santorum’s opposition. In the interim, none of Romney’s primary opponents are hurting him in any way that hasn’t already occurred to Obama.
Ultimately, it’s doing Romney no favors to let him run as a pure financial technocrat, unmoored to any of the values that actually undergird fiscal conservatism.
Why don’t you stop babbling inanely and actually have a look at the platform he is running on?
One keeps hoping that before the convention, Romney will start absorbing some lessons & ideas that would make him a more credible November candidate
What ideas, you idiot? You can’t be specific because you don’t know what you are talking about. The Romney of your imagination has no relationship to the one who has actually been campaigning for the last several months.
In my defense, Steve, we can’t all be as trenchant and intelligent as your badself. Can’t we set the bar a tad lower, for pity’s sake?
And the particular ideas I was thinking of are largely social-conservative theories about the nature of a well-ordered civilization, and the inescapably moral underpinnings that help fiscal conservatism work in the real world: moorings without which a purely managerial approach is likely to go adrift. In short, a vision of a society and civilization that isn’t expressible in purely fiscal or negative (libertarian) terms.
If Santorum’s not saying anything of that sort that Romney isn’t, I’d be happy to get corrected.
the particular ideas I was thinking of are largely social-conservative theories about the nature of a well-ordered civilization
Then I say again that you are an idiot. Theories about the nature of a well-ordered civilization have their place, but that place is not an election campaign. Not even Reagan ran on “theories about the nature of a well-ordered civilization”.
Theories about the nature of a well-ordered civilization are something which must percolate from the bottom up, not be imposed from the top down.
I’ll refer you to the word “underpinnings” in my last post. Not every idea need be explicit in a candidate’s platform, but it’s a problem when some aren’t even implicit (and they certainly were implicit in Reagan’s campaigns).
It’s precisely these ideas that are percolating from the “bottom up” in the form of Romney’s competitors, and which Romney partisans are trying to declare inadmissible in “top-down” fashion.
It’s precisely these ideas that are percolating from the “bottom up” in the form of Romney’s competitors
Really? So Santroum’s remarks about the evils of contraception (not taxpayer funding of contraception, but just contraception) are an example of “ideas percolating from the bottom up” and reflect “theories about the nature of a well-ordered civilization”?
“Bottom-up”? Arguably, in that his remarks introduce the views of a thoughtful but politically underpowered Republican faction into the main conversation. And though I don’t agree with Santorum’s take on contraception, beyond any question it invokes “theories about the nature of a well-ordered civilization” (whether or not you care for those theories). So yes, on both counts.
his remarks introduce the views of a thoughtful but politically underpowered Republican faction into the main conversation
They do that.
Of course they also tend to sabotage the rest of the Republican message. This is only a good thing if you believe that the principle purpose of a political campaign is not win elections, but to discuss “theories about the nature of a well-ordered civilization”.
The Republican Party of your dreams might have twenty seats in Congress, but it would be one with an unsurpassed ability to engage in abstract discussion on theories of civilization.
Some of us would actually like to win back the White House this year though.
Uh-hunh. You are aware, I trust, that there are degrees in between the two poles you offer as choices?
No one’s asking Romney to become Santorum, much less a travelling tent-revivalist. I’d be content with a glimmer of understanding on his part for the priorities of social conservatives, and a willingness to absorb a few of their arguments. If that’s disqualifying or crippling to a candidate, then America has more problems than any change in Chief Executive can address. But (without presuming to read your mind) I’d guess neither of us really believes that premise.
No one’s asking Romney to become Santorum, much less a travelling tent-revivalist. I’d be content with a glimmer of understanding on his part for the priorities of social conservatives, and a willingness to absorb a few of their arguments.
He has promised to reinstitute the Mexico City Policy and to appoint judges like Roberts and Scalia. I’d say that constitutes more than just the “glimmer of understanding” you are asking for. If he does that much, he’ll have done more than Reagan did for the anti-abortion cause.
If Rick Santorum starts to look more like Newt, that would be to Rick Santorum’s credit.
Reading the pro-Romney posts here are disturbing. There is a nastiness that does reflect the negative campaigning that Romney has done. That negative campaigning has been done because Romney, quite simply, lacks consesrvative accomplishments and conservative beliefs and that fact points to Romney’s current “platform” being just rhetoric.
What is Romney’s record? It is certainly not a conservative one. He served only one term in public office as Governor of Massachusetts and did not run for re-election at a time that he had a 35% approval/65%disapproval rating. As for spending during his one term as Governor, Romney increased it, and when graded against other Governors according to the 2005 Fiscal Policy Report Card produced by the non-partisan Cato Institute, Romney got a D. As for job creation during that one term, the Massachusetts state economy ground to a halt with Romney as its steward and ranked 47th out of 50 states. During his one term as Governor, Romney increased fees and taxes by over $740 million. As for entitlements and growth in Government during his one term as Governor, Romney created a brand new entitlement (RomneyCare) and then mandated that all individuals purchase health insurance and all employers with 11 or more employees provide it; RomneyCare is socialized medicine at the state level. As for health insurance costs resulting from RomneyCare, according to Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston, state health expenditures increased by $414 million, private health insurance costs increased by $4.311 billion, federal Medicaid for Massachusetts increased by $2.418 billion, and Medicare expenditures increased by $1.426 billion for a total increase of $8.569 billion in RomneyCare’s first five years. During his one term as Governor, Romney appointed pro-abortion rights Democrats the state judiciary, he appointed litigation-happy environmentalists to key government jobs, he flip-flopped on cap and trade, he flip-flopped on carbon taxes, and he made the following promise about a coal-fired plant: “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people.” And while he was Governor, Romney was adamantly pro-abortion rights. Romney says he was a severely conservative Governor. Baloney; the facts say otherwise.
What are Romney’s beliefs? While Newt was a “Young Turk” captain in the Reagan Revolution and then as House Speaker was forcing Bill Clinton to balanced budgets and welfare reform, Romney voted for liberal Democrats Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Paul Tsongas. Now Romney is supposedly a conservative? The problem is that when it comes to beliefs, Romney is a flip flopper. Romney was adamantly pro-abortion rights until around 2006 when he started running for President. The “Etch-A-Sketch” comment of a campaign manager for Romney was on target. Romney will say what he needs to fulfill his political ambitions. That is what he learned in the private equity world to seal the sale. That is not what the Republican Party candidate for President should be.
I recommend all to read Thomas Sowell’s March 19 column “The ‘Inevitability’ Vote” published on National Review Online.
Reading the pro-Romney posts here are disturbing. There is a nastiness that does reflect the negative campaigning that Romney has done.
What reality do you inhabit? Romney’s campaigning has been completely normal for a a primary, and no better or no worse than the campaigning of Santorum or Gingrich.
I get the impression that this is the very first primary campaign a lot of the anti-Romney crowd have ever seen.
Excuse me, SteveM, are you able to respond on the merits without engaging in gratuitious insult that adds nothing to your position?
The fact is that Romney has engaged in negative, unfair attacks first and foremost on Newt and now on Rick Santorum, spending tens of millions of dollars in that effort. To say that is just normal campaigning is not being candid — no more candid than Romney trying to say that he was a severely conservative Governor when his record shows that he was a liberal Governor.
Reagan voted for FDR during World War II in the early 1940s. Then, as Reagan said, the Democrat Perty left him. Reagan in 1964 was the most effective advocate for Barry Goldwater; remember “A Time For Choosing.” Reagan was the Republican Governor of California in the 1960s and the Republican nominee for President in 1980. By 1980, there was a long track record of conservatism in belief, in advocacy and in action.
are you able to respond on the merits
I am responding on the merits.
On the merits, the claim that the Romney primary campaign of 2012 has engaged in some exceptional degree of negativity or dishonesty is completely without merit. It has been no more negative or dishonest than the campaigns of Gingrich or Santorum, and no more dishonest or negative than the past campaigns of McCain or Bush.
This is what political campaigns look like. Everybody tries to put themselves in the best possible light and their opponents in the worst possible light. Everybody.
To say that is just normal campaigning is not being candid
It is completely and utterly candid.
Reagan voted for FDR during World War II in the early 1940s. Then, as Reagan said, the Democrat Perty left him.
He was not being entirely honest there because the Democratic Party of FDR was extremely liberal, at least as liberal as the party of Obama. And he voted for FDR before the war.
Reagan was the Republican Governor of California in the 1960s and the Republican nominee for President in 1980.
Romney was the Republican Governor of Massachusetts in the 199o’s and is the Republican nominee for President in 2012.
No, SteveM, Romney did go much farther than anyone in the past in Romney’s negative, false attacks on rivals and in his spending of tens of millions of dollars on those negative, false attacks.
No, SteveM, you cannot compare Reagan’s record with Romney’s. First of all, you ought to know that Romney was the Massachusetts Governor in the years 2002-2006, not the 1990s. Secondly, Romney was a liberal Governor. I went through the facts of that liberal record above in Post No. 8. Third, Reagan was the conservative standard bearer since 1964, 18 years before Reagan was the Republican nominee for President. Romney 18 years ago was at best a liberal Republican who had voted for liberal Democrats for President for more than a decade previously.
Romney did go much farther than anyone in the past
Prove it.
Cite specific examples.
Here’s an anti-Gingrich ad by Team Romney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63n6N11mrO4
Is it really shockingly unfair or dishonest or nasty? No. It’s basically factual. Gingrich really did work as a consultant for Freddie Mac between 2001 and 2010, when the housing bubble was growing and bursting. By the standards of political commercials this one is completely unexceptional.
And also meaningless. Gingrich had no power to effect policy, and he did not try, nor did he even approve.
The ad is smear by implication.
You bought it.
Romney voted for liberal Democrats Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Paul Tsongas.
Ronald Reagan voted for liberal Democrat FDR. In fact he voted for him four times.
Out there in the vast, mindless middle of moderate voter-land is the group who will elect a president in November. They are basically liberals with a slight bent to long-ago rumors of traditional values. All the wishing for a true conservative win against Obama is a failure to grasp reality. Less than 4 years ago the moderates joined the Socialists base and elected Obama, and they still “approve” of him by about 45%. His principles appeal to them to some extent now, as they did then.
Most Conservatives agree that 4 more years of the master deceiver will be a disaster for the nation, yet the idealists labor on, vowing to elect a true conservative, I assume, with a popular vote somewhere in the 35% range.
We didn’t get into the deep, deep hole of Liberalism we are into in one election, and we won’t get out of it in one. The nation will not be whole again until the scourge of liberal beliefs has worn off the moderates and higher values have been learned–I suspect from hard times. But, we do have an opportunity to elect a president who is not a Socialist, even if he is still somewhat lacking in the truest sense of Conservatism. The moderates may help us elect Romney, but they will not help elect Santorum, or Paul, or Gingrich.
And, yes, the assaults that Santorum is waging against Romney are benefiting Obama. Santorum needs to get out of the ego party, along with Gingrich, and Paul, and do whatever they can to accomplish the most essential task since winning WWII–beat Obama. Then, we can begin the long haul of trying to convince a voting majority that more Conservatism would be beneficial.
Do you supporters of Santorum, Paul, or Gingrich really want to re-elect Obama?
IMHO, you couldn’t be more wrong. True, there is a vast, mindless middle of moderate voter-land out there who will elect a president in November, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be lead to make the right decision on election day — and isn’t that what elections are all about?
That is how Reagan won the presidency: not by tailoring his message to what the MSM believed the mindless middle of moderate voter-land thought, but by presenting his views to them. He, in fact, lead the mindless middle of moderate voter-land to vote for fiscal conservative cause then, and we can do it again. All we need is the genuine article.
In any case, we certainly can’t lead the mindless middle of moderate voter-land fiscal conservatism using a “leader” who doesn’t, in fact, represent fiscal conservatism. This is exactly how we will eventually end up with a Barack Obama.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David,
Reagan was elected 32 years ago, in a time when the nation was still “center-right” and had not become obsessed with liberalism. Today is a far different situation, where vast numbers of voters get their news and their values from liberal media and each other, and who have great disdain for Conservative values. I hope you are not expecting to enlighten these people to the values of 1980 in time for the general election. It is not really that they are uninformed; it is that they were informed by Socialists while we were not watching. And, it needs to be understood that we are not talking about the Liberal base–these voters who will elect the president are in the middle, where Reagan gained the win, but very likely could not today.
America’s problem is in the people–they have accepted Liberalism to a much greater extent than we ever imagined possible. Traditional principles are now in a position of defense.
The best we can hope for now is to stop a complete capitulation into Socialism over the next few years. Whether or not we will get back to Constitutional principles in our lifetimes is very questionable. But, we may be able to remove the Socialist from office whose agenda is, clearly, to implement Socialism. I take that reality very seriously, not idealistically.
“Reagan was elected 32 years ago, in a time when the nation was still “center-right” and had not become obsessed with liberalism.”
The nation IS center right, and further right than when Reagan was elected. If the GOP gives the people an actual choice between Obama and a Conservative, they will elect the conservative. Why the GOP might serve Romney up instead I have no idea.
Rick Santorum is staying in the race for the same good and noble reason Newt is standing in the race. They have heard the voice of the Tea Party calling for a brokered convention.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Looks like I will be voting for Gary Johnson then in the General.
Don’t count Gingrich out! According to the Daily Rash, Newt is having a yard sale this weekend to raise additional campaign money. The man can’t be stopped. http://www.thedailyrash.com/newt-gingrich-has-yard-sale-to-raise-campaign-money
I agree with you about Newt.
Did you guys catch that poll in which Obama led Romney and Santorum by double digits?
Yes, it’s early, but I’m already bracing myself for a second term by Obama. Americans like to re elect incumbents, and Obama is a campaign machine. Romney is a solid candidate, but he’s not looking like someone who can take down Obama.
But global trends indicates that lefty presidents and leaders tend to fall out of favor in their second term. The student loan crisis is just around the corner. Barring a miraculous economic turnaround the voters will tire of him by 2015. By then candidates like Scott Walker and Rubio will be ready for the big stage.
Which is why the recall in WI and Obamacare’s fate in the SC is so important. If we win those, then Obama’s second term will be more closer to lame duck.
You are exactly right. I believe that it will take another 4 years of the insanity of Socialism at its peaking to get the message across to the moderates that something is structurally wrong in the US. The economic “recovery” is statistics on steroids, and reality can only be manipulated for so long.
Hopefully, we will have a majority in the House, and maybe, maybe, in the Senate also. If so, then the Obfuscator-in-chief can only do so much damage with Executive Orders. Of course, the economy will be flat and our debt will make history, but that will help in the path back to sanity.
The reality is that American voters will have to go through a period of stark reality to get their minds off Tinkerbell economics. The next four years with Obama should do the trick.
I suggest not watching TV or listening to the radio for the next four years. Try vegetable gardening instead. The only way to educate a Liberal is by hardship. A quick look at the path of our economy offers plenty of that.
TV… radio.. what is that?
Now silver … 2008 was 9.785 an OZ(pot a bit more. liberal data). 2011 silver is what $32.00… I have no idea what obama is paying per OZ for pot/coke.
I wouldn’t pay attention to any poll while the Republicans are still beating the crap out of each in the primary.
SteveM has a bad case of self-incrimination witrh respect to Romney’s negative ad campaigns. Newt did have a consultancy agreement with Freddie Mac, but thereafter the ad is not “basically factual.”
Another Romney ad that was bad was the one badly misstating the facts of the partisan driven ethics case against Newt that concerned Newt’s teaching of a history class and that the IRS threw out in itsw entirety.
To quote Thomas Sowell in his March 19 column “The ‘Inevitrability’ Vote”: “It is truer in this election than in most that ‘it takes a candidate to beat a candidate.’ And that candidate has to offer both himself and his vision. Massive ad campaigns against rivals is not a vision.”
SteveM has a bad case of self-incrimination witrh respect to Romney’s negative ad campaigns. Newt did have a consultancy agreement with Freddie Mac, but thereafter the ad is not “basically factual.”
The basic fact being that Newt “I’m against government” Gingrich worked as a government lobbyist for ten years, the ad was “basically factual”. It was as basically factual as any campaign ad ever is.
If Romney wins convincingly then his opponents should consider withdrawing from the race. Ultimately this is about defeating Obama, not proving how tough you are. Ego won’t help the Republicans.
Nor will romney help Conservatives.
Hey, who’s up for an election pool? No, not who is going to win in November. How about, “which prominent conservative Romney supporter will be the first to sprain his neck while bending over backward to defend candidate Romney’s sudden leftward lurch when he gets the nomination?” Hmmm? Any takers?
Why do republican’s forget that Romney has spent the last 3 years campaigning for and helping to elect other republican candidates? A “liberal” certainly wouldn’t do this, would he?
No, Romney is not a liberal, he has never had the opportunity to govern with a republican majority, quite the opposite. Romney will select a conservative VP as his running mate and hopefully many doubts will become positive’s.
I have no problem voting for this man and once he is the official republican nominee, we will see Obama’s numbers slide. Obama can’t even get a 50% approval rating in any of the polls I am reading. He is weak and once Romney starts airing his gaffes, videos and mistakes, I expect to see Obama take a major dive.
Cheer up – it could be alot worse.
He has originated, fought for, and for the his whole life long agitated for so many liberal progressive ideas, that no, he is in fact no conservative at all, not even a “severe” one.
Check out Obama’s poll numbers today Mr. Perkins, Romney is leading Obama and will continue to do so. Romney gave an excellent speech last night, did you listen?
From Michigan to Florida I am meeting people who are fired up about Romney. They drown out all the negatives you present. You will soon be the minority in this election with your obstructed views of Romney.
If Romney is afraid to debate his fellow GOP candidates, gets flustered and upset during a Brett Baier interview, gets angry when questioned or interrupted and constantly says stuff that has no basis in fact and completely contradicts what he said the day or week before – and if Romney flutters, flips and flubs daily and has never stood up against any liberal social or political agenda – ALL of which have occurred on tape, then:
How will he ever manage face, debate and defeat Obama?
How would he hold up in a serious national or global crisis or against ruthless Islamic and Communist leaders?
How can the American people – and our allies – ever depend on Romney for reliable, stable and strong leadership?
PS – TEXAS Republicans say their debate is not optional: http://hardincountyconservatives.blogspot.com/2012/04/texas-gop-passes-resolutions-warning.html
A dollar a day, roast beef, and the Chinese must go.
The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do -Josef Stalin