Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Romney to drop out today (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Romney to drop out today
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just go to your favorite breaking news site.
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It would have been funny if he'd endorsed Huckabee instead of McCain. Turn the spoiler into a real candidate in spite of himself. [Big Grin]

Interesting that attending President Hinckley's funeral right before Super Tuesday may have been the kiss of death for Romney's campaign. [Frown]

[ February 07, 2008, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That would be valid only if his results on ST represented a significant departure from the polls of say the week before. They did not.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quitter.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think he took a hit for the Funeral. I didn't even hear about his attendance, I just assumed he went.
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I doubt the funeral was a factor.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, as Romney began to slip he got nasty. That just did him in. But he might give his votes to Fuggabee instead of McGame. That would be bidgey.
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
I doubt the funeral was a factor.

Newsweek thought it was, although not the main one.

The funeral was two factors, actually. First, fewer hours campaigning obviously reduced his chances. Second, it was another reminder of his religion, which was obviously a factor, particularly in those Bible belt states.

"I didn't even hear about his attendance" --

I did, on multiple media's coverage of the funeral, and also on the coverage of Super Tuesday.

[ February 07, 2008, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Dey:
No, as Romney began to slip he got nasty. That just did him in. But he might give his votes to Fuggabee instead of McGame.

The quotes I saw from Romney suggested that he was tipping to McCain, for the good of the bloody Party. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sure would be hillarious if Huck won now that he's accomplished his purpose.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I'm sorry to see Romney go, he was definitely my favorite of all the available candidates. More amusingly, I like how he turned the tables on the so-called spoiler. Huck can't possibly win now -- let's just say his odds are pretty damned slim -- so, will he stay in the game and lose more money, or prove Romney right that the Huckster truly was a spoiler by dropping fairly quickly? Inquiring minds wanna know. [Smile]

Looks like I'll be voting for McCain come the fall.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
McCain made what most commentators concede was an excellent speech, taking a good first step toward healing the separation between him and hard core conservatives.

I suspect that Sen. Hillary Clinton will win the Dem nomination, with the visible aid of the party organization. I also expect that this will leave the supporters of Sen. Barack Obama feeling disillusioned and angry, and many of them will prefer to vote for Sen. John McCain, who also has strong appeal to the independents who tend to favor Obama.

I also predict that McCain will be able to ambush Clinton tellingly more than once in debates (she set herself up more than once for Obama to score on her tellingly in debates, so we know she is not that good).

So in conclusion, I predict that McCain will win election by close to a double-digit margin, and Republicans could be returned to control of Congress through the coattail effect.

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MS
Member
Member # 5968

 - posted      Profile for MS   Email MS   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, that's interesting, I predict almost exactly the opposite of everything you said will happen, except that I think McCain will still win but just barely and which will lead to "mandate" issues.

It's too bad most of us don't know each other, we could start a betting pool.

Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MS:
Ron, that's interesting, I predict almost exactly the opposite of everything you said will happen, except that I think McCain will still win but just barely and which will lead to "mandate" issues.

It's too bad most of us don't know each other, we could start a betting pool.

What exactly is the "opposite" of:
quote:
I suspect that Sen. Hillary Clinton will win the Dem nomination, with the visible aid of the party organization. I also expect that this will leave the supporters of Sen. Barack Obama feeling disillusioned and angry,
Would the opposite be that Senator Hillary Clinton will lose the Republican Nomination, with the invisible opposition of no party organization. This will leave the supporters of Sen. Barack Obama feeling illusioned and happy?

Please clarify your prediction.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MS
Member
Member # 5968

 - posted      Profile for MS   Email MS   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, what I meant was that
-I don't think McCain will heal the rift with conservatives in time
-I think that Hillary will win the nomination but no matter how bad she treats Obama she will not drive them to vote GOP, especially for McCain
-I think McCain will flounder in the debates and will be seen as too old and too tied to Bush II's policies, especially on Iraq which is and will be his albatross
-I predict that even though McCain will win, Congress will wind up with even more democrats than today, possibly giving them a 2/3 majority in both houses

In the end I think McCain will probably win by a tiny margin and that itself will lead to problems.

Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MS, you need to talk to more registered Dems who make over 50k a year and have degrees.

It's not just that better educated and wealthier Dems break for Obama, a lot of them dislike both Clintons. They're the money pool, and they're the activists.

I'm voting McCain or third party if Clinton wins the nomination. If she wins it as a result of smoke filled room deals, I'll campaign my heart out for McCain.

I've been part of the Obama campaign for over a month, and better than half of my fellow volunteers have told me they will not vote for Clinton, and a large number of them are considering McCain.

Bloomberg can knock her right out of the race in a minute, and if the Conservative anger at McCain does maintain steam (which I doubt), Bloomberg just might win.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MS:
Well, what I meant was that
-I don't think McCain will heal the rift with conservatives in time

That may be true.

quote:
-I think that Hillary will win the nomination
Jury's still out on that.

quote:
but no matter how bad she treats Obama she will not drive them to vote GOP, especially for McCain
Why is "them"? I think you may be surprised at the number of Republicans and former Republicans willing to cross the lines for Obama. And I say this as someone who stood for Hillary in the NV caucus.

quote:
In the end I think McCain will probably win by a tiny margin and that itself will lead to problems.
The way things are going, I'm expecting a tight race no matter who wins.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete's right, a lot of the "democratic turnout" has been Republicans - life-long registered Republicans, crossing over in same day registration States.

What with phone banking and door knocking, and awful lot of independents and Republicans with an option that I've spoken too saw their vote as a choice between Obama and McCain.

McCain has a lot strengths Bush didn't. I'm sure we'll all appreciate his "no third terms" bumper stickers and his bringing up Clinton oil shiek money with no fear it will be thrown back at him.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MS
Member
Member # 5968

 - posted      Profile for MS   Email MS   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you guys seriously missing the fact that Obama is against the war and wants to end it and withdraw, and that McCain doesn't?

You can talk about independents all you want but why on earth would they simply switch to McCain even though McCain is the only pro-continuing-war-open-endedly candidate at this point? Obama is the most anti-war candidate left. What makes you think his supporters will switch to McCain?

Also, you seem to discount the unpopularity of the Iraq War affecting McCain at all in the general election. That's a huge omission if you ask me.

If I were to list the other candidates in order of most likely to pick up Obama supporters McCain would be at the bottom of that list. Obama's stance on the Iraq War is such a central part of his campaign that I cannot believe anyone here is working on the Obama campaign and would then vote for McCain if he dropped out. That's absurd.

[ February 07, 2008, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: MS ]

Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nope, but I'm not missing Clintons failure to call a mistake a mistake, or that she won't promise more than to start bringing some unknown number of troops home 60 days after she takes office.

Plenty of Folks remember that Nixon promised to be a new Ike, and bring "peace with honor" in 69. It didn't happen.

It's true, MS. Despite repeated requests that people knock it off, there are scores of folks on Blogs on the Obama site saying that they will vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee.

Right now, a bunch of them are getting themselves off the DNC mailing list, ticked off that they're being solicited for donations that might go to a Clinton run in the general.

[ February 07, 2008, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MS
Member
Member # 5968

 - posted      Profile for MS   Email MS   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I simply have a hard time believing that come the general election, the people who supported the candidate most against the war will switch to support the candidate most FOR the war, just because they don't like Hillary.

I predict a more reasonable outcome is that they don't vote or write-in someone or somehow become reconciled with Clinton before they bring themselves to vote for Mr. Iraq War himself. And if you don't think Hillary is going to slaughter McCain's image on the war then you obviously are underestimating the Clinton Smear Machine. Hell, she will probably bring up the MCA and the fact that McCain is an admitted traitor. They learned their lessons from Rove.

The current blog thing is irrelevant. It could be McCain supporters. I have seen so much staged online crap that it is pointless to consider real-time blog comments as indicative of anything. So many staffers have gotten in trouble for posting false comments on countless blogs and websites over the last 10 years that it's not even funny anymore. Remember TedStevens.net?

[ February 07, 2008, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: MS ]

Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sure, but they're largely folks that have been signed up for months and raised funds for Senator Obama.

It shocks a lot of people, I know, but a lot of the young, active, progessive, educated Democrats hate the Clintons and what they represent, and would rather see McCain win and the DLC wing shoved out than see another Clinton Presidency.

The people who burned their vacation time or ditched class to ride out to Nevada with me, the people I phone banked with in the office, the people I spent weeks knocking on doors with, were not "Republican Plants".

At the Kodak Theater, during Thursdays debate, when the subject of a obama/clinton or clinton/obama ticket came up, Clinton supporters cheered and Obama supporters stood silent and stunned or booed loudly.

A significant chunk of the volunteers and campaign activists aren't Democrats, they're Independents, Republicans, Third Party, and previously completely non-voting non-registered non-affiliated.

In CA, Obama won over 70% of first time voters, and many of those people weren't kids. They registered just to vote for him after decades of apathy.

The vast majority of those volunteering for and donating to his campaign have never volunteered or donated to a campaign before, and a goodly chunk have never voted.

Those folks are going back to their previous affiliation or apathy if he's not the nominee.

No one should expect their votes in November if he's not.

[ February 07, 2008, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MS
Member
Member # 5968

 - posted      Profile for MS   Email MS   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about you address
-staying home
-writing in someone else

instead of assuming that instead of voting for Clinton there will be massive shifts for McCain. How can you sit there and tell me that all these die-hard Obama supporters, who I bet there is a vast majority who like his strong anti-war platform, will all of a sudden pro-actively support and vote for the most pro-war candidate?

Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who said all?

Not all by any means, but a heck of a lot, especially in the purple states.

The war isn't the only issue on the table here, by a long shot. With no offense intended to Pete, who I dearly love and don't mean to insult by saying this, you're kind of approaching this the way he aproaches the MFA.

It's your biggest issue, and it may be the issue on which you're deciding who to vote for, but millions of Americans simply want to move past the Culture War here at home.

A lot more will stay home, or vote third party, but many people have crossed over or gotten involved to support Senator Obama for reasons having nothing to do with the war.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MS
Member
Member # 5968

 - posted      Profile for MS   Email MS   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess what I am saying is that I think the war is enough of an issue that I do not think enough people will switch from Obama to McCain to really matter. And no the war is not my top issue but it is for many people. And for many people the war might not be their first issue but it is enough of an issue to firmly repel them from McCain.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A lot of folks who are against the war are more against torture than against the war, MS.

And as little as I like McCain, I have to admit that he has been the single most instrumental voice for bringing the administration to its knees on the torture issue.

It's incredibly ironic that with Romney gone, that I might possibly consider Hillary as the candidate most likely to defend marriage, and McCain the most likely to defend international humanitarian norms.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MS
Member
Member # 5968

 - posted      Profile for MS   Email MS   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why is there this massive assumption that if they can't vote for Obama then the vast majority MUST make a choice between McCain and Clinton? What ever happened to voter apathy, low turnout rates, or crazy write-in campaigns? Hello, this is America, land of the 22% average voter turnout rate!
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
Who said all?

Not all by any means, but a heck of a lot, especially in the purple states.

The war isn't the only issue on the table here, by a long shot. With no offense intended to Pete, who I dearly love and don't mean to insult by saying this, you're kind of approaching this the way he aproaches the MFA.

No offense taken. Hard to believe that I supported Mike Gravel, the only openly pro-ssm candidate, eh? I found to my surprise that if you line up ALL the other issues together, that they actually outweighed ssm for me. [Eek!] At least in that moment of weakness. [Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MS:
Why is there this massive assumption that if they can't vote for Obama then the vast majority MUST make a choice between McCain and Clinton? What ever happened to voter apathy, low turnout rates, or crazy write-in campaigns? Hello, this is America, land of the 22% average voter turnout rate!

IMO, we've had something that we don't usually have in elections, a batch of really good candidates. If this doesn't kick Americans out of our stupor, nothing will.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the death toll stays down, it won't be nearly so repellent. Many of those who are passionately against the war don't trust Hillary to end it anyway.

So, the candidate you expect to continue the war despite promises, or the candidate who promises to continue the war. What's the difference?

Some of Obamas voters, maybe as many as 65-70% will vote for Clinton. Possibly, as few as 5-10% will veer to McCain. 20 to 30% stay home or vote third party, assuming no Bloomberg. That means Clinton loses.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with Jesse's reasoning but not certain about his conclusion, since many Republicans are also very conflicted, torn, and dissafected.

If Senator Clinton were to pick up certain advice that Bill Clinton gave to John Kerry, then the Democratic party might win some states that they've not won for generations.

The idea of Coulter and Limbaugh actually stumping for Hillary Clinton boggles the mind, but stranger things have happened. [Big Grin]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some of those on this thread seem to be confusing what they would like to happen with what is likely to happen. On the other hand, while Romney has now dropped out, my prediction of Giuliani as the Republican nominee has not fared well either.

Concerning Hinckley's funeral, stuff happens in campaigns. The most significant I remember was the assassination of Robert Kennedy, which surely changed things that year. And some commentator was reminiscing about how Goldwater was losing to Nelson Rockefeller in the crucial state of California, until Rockefeller's new wife had a baby and reminded everyone he was an adulterer. So Goldwater carried California by 2%, for all the good it did him. But as for Hinckley's funeral Romney had already decided to spend only three million on advertizing after Florida, before Super Tuesday, out of some 35 million he spent overall. That looks to me like a token effort; if he still had thought he had a chance to win, I should have expected him to invest way more than that toward Super Tuesday. Heck, he spent five million on Florida alone, which had a lot fewer delegates than the Super Tuesday states. So I doubt Hinckley's death changed the outcome, even if it surely changed some votes.

[ February 07, 2008, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

It shocks a lot of people, I know, but a lot of the young, active, progessive, educated Democrats hate the Clintons and what they represent, and would rather see McCain win and the DLC wing shoved out than see another Clinton Presidency.

What the leftists are saying is that the Clintons are pro-war, in the pocket of the corporations, and are basically too conservative.

I would need to double-check, but I believe the number of people registered as independents is fairly small.

At best, Obama doesn'tcurrently have the built-in antagonism that Clinton has by virtue of the fact that he hasn't been around long, but by the time election rolls around, I can assure you that the likelihood of "the most liberal senator of 2007" getting many Republican votes is pretty small. 'Yes, we can' and being pretty just isn't enough to sway Republicans to vote for him when he has nothing in common with 99% of them, and I have seen no polls that show many Republicans would , though of course if the polls are out there, I would love to see them.

So, I agree with MS's reasoning, plus the reasons I've already given (ie, Obama is pro-choice, not against ssm, fiscal liberal).

Oh, and I think Republicans voting for him because he would bring happiness to the government is rather far-fetched.

I do agree, though, that Obama would bring liberals out in droves. I do agree that many people will vote for him who haven't voted before.

Personally, while I am happy with his policies, I'm bored with the cult that surrounds him. If he gets elected president, he's not going to unify the country, since everything he does isn't going to be seen objectively by anyone. At least with Clinton, people wouldn't rush to support her in everything she did.

Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
Some of those on this thread seem to be confusing what they would like to happen with what is likely to happen. On the other hand, while Romney has now dropped out, my prediction of Giuliani as the Republican nominee has not fared well either.

Concerning Hinckley's funeral, stuff happens in campaigns. The most significant I remember was the assassination of Robert Kennedy, which surely changed things that year. And some commentator was reminiscing about how Goldwater was losing to Nelson Rockefeller in the crucial state of California, until Rockefeller's new wife had a baby and reminded everyone he was an adulterer. So Goldwater carried California by 2%, for all the good it did him. But as for Hinckley's funeral Romney had already decided to spend only three million on advertizing after Florida, before Super Tuesday, out of some 35 million he spent overall. That looks to me like a token effort; if he still had thought he had a chance to win, I should have expected him to invest way more than that toward Super Tuesday. Heck, he spent five million on Florida alone, which had a lot fewer delegates than the Super Tuesday states. So I doubt Hinckley's death changed the outcome, even if it surely changed some votes.

There were some very close elections there, hobesen.

Incidentally, I'm not crying prejudice over Romney losing because of the funeral. I think that Romney probably should not have gone. Lots of good LDS folks didn't go to the funeral because they had other commitments. Romney should have stuck to his, unless, like you say, it was only a "token" commitment by then.

But I've never heard of a Mormon tossing around three million dollars as a token. The Romneys I knew were generous, but certainly not wastrels. And Mitt's own history with budgets was pretty good.

I think we've lost the best possible candidate on a number of fronts, and the person with the character most suited to be president, the most sincere and the most calm and reasonable.

But it bothered me that he was running on a platform of anti-immigration and low taxes for the rich, and it bothers me more that because of his candidacy, the other candidates have felt pressured to adopt similar positions. [Frown]

I think that he would still be in the race if he'd pushed marriage and the FMA rather than that right-wing stuff. He listened too much to campaign managers and paid the price.

[ February 07, 2008, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MS, Jesse is probably right on this. He has the rare moment. If you want to see instant party unification on the Republican front, and I mean INSTANT, nominate Hillary. I walked the walk in support of the Iraq War, and I'd walk again against Hillary. (Hell, Jesse, you might just see a check from me. Even if Obama loses, making Hillary's nomination a Bataan Death March would be worth sending money to a Democrat.)

The other thing you aren't getting is that the margins in the elections are very small. Blacks form about a third of the die hard Democratic vote. Bush won by a few percentage points. If 20% of Blacks feel gyped out of the nominating process and stay home, it's almost an automatic win for Republicans. Add to that the loss of some of their elites, particularly the folks who got all wet carrying water for President Pants, and it looks kind of grim for Hillary. Her negatives are in the 50-60 range.

If Hillary is nominated, Dems lose seats in the House. Maybe one in the Senate. If Obama, Dems gain seats.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The idea of Coulter and Limbaugh actually stumping for Hillary Clinton boggles the mind, but stranger things have happened. [Big Grin]
Not many [Smile]
quote:
I simply have a hard time believing that come the general election, the people who supported the candidate most against the war will switch to support the candidate most FOR the war, just because they don't like Hillary.
I have a hard time believing that a Democrat would vote for McCain for that or any other reason, and I frankly don't think that Hillary would have an impact on Republican turnout. I think their turnout will hinge on McCain himself, and I'm having a hard time imagining him in the debates or in office. We already know that Hillary is a warrior in both venues.

I think Fly has a point that Hillary could cost some Congressional seats, but rather than losing seats, I think they would pick up fewer than they would with Obama.

[ February 07, 2008, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote:

It shocks a lot of people, I know, but a lot of the young, active, progessive, educated Democrats hate the Clintons and what they represent, and would rather see McCain win and the DLC wing shoved out than see another Clinton Presidency.

What the leftists are saying is that the Clintons are pro-war, in the pocket of the corporations, and are basically too conservative.

I would need to double-check, but I believe the number of people registered as independents is fairly small.

I would need to double-check, but I believe that there's no independent primary.

Faced with "check here if you wish to lose an ability to affect the outcome of the election that's more substantial than an actual vote," many independents flip a coin and pick a party.


quote:
At best, Obama doesn'tcurrently have the built-in antagonism that Clinton has by virtue of the fact that he hasn't been around long, but by the time election rolls around
Osama is simply more likable, younger, and is a physically black man that was raised by whites which gives him a double-edged benefit in a country that doesn't grasp the nature of its own "racism." Black people see someone who looks like them, and White people can tell themselves that they aren't racist anymore while supporting someone who doesn't really feel black to them. Put simply, with the exception of his "Latino" problem,** Obama is "black" in all the ways that are politically expedient, and white in all the ways that are politically expedient.

** My analysis of Obama's "Latino" problem: while some foolish pundits claim that Latinos are voting against Obama's skin color, this idiotic analysis ignores the fact that many Latinos are physically black. Many Latinos see themselves in a cultural competition with the self-identified black culture, and Obama's popularity with the latter group through identity politics automatically harms him in many Latino circles.

quote:
So, I agree with MS's reasoning, plus the reasons I've already given (ie, Obama is pro-choice, not against ssm, fiscal liberal).
Obama claims to be against ssm and for ssus, but he'd need to substantiate it with specifics (e.g. a promised litmus test against nominating pro-ssm candidates) in order to be believed. The fact that his congregation is a highly political organization that strongly supports ssm bodes poorly for him in that regard, but that's a presumption that Obama can rebutt if he wishes.

quote:
Oh, and I think Republicans voting for him because he would bring happiness to the government is rather far-fetched.
Who fetched it? I'm curious what that statement looked like in its original form.


quote:
Personally, while I am happy with his policies, I'm bored with the cult that surrounds him. If he gets elected president, he's not going to unify the country, since everything he does isn't going to be seen objectively by anyone. At least with Clinton, people wouldn't rush to support her in everything she did.
Politics is funny. Try going back to 1986 and trying to persuade folks that the 21st century would begin with the USA declaring war on a small band of cave-dwellers in Afghanistan and that the war would last more than seven years.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The analysis of Hispanic voting is interesting.

But concerning independents, as of 2004 there were 42 million voters registered as independents, as compared to 55 million Republicans and 72 million Democrats. Since then the proportion of registered independents has certainly increased, partly because in some states they can choose in which primary they vote. That rather negates the argument that they are losing the ability to influence the outcome.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Independents and Decline to State increase yearly, and several States don't record a party affiliation at all.

DTS is the fastest growing party "affiliation" in California.

Why would Democrats cross party lines to vote Republican? Millions did in 1980 1984 2000 and 2004 Presidential election.

We all like to think that our issues, the war, or corrupt donors, of SSM, or abortion, or gun rights, are the issues of our parties, and that anyone with the same party on our registration must agree with us. 'Taint so.

Most people vote based on how the candidate makes them feel, not on specific policies. It's the same way most of them buy cars.

When it comes to Latinos, the biggest issue they cite in not voting for Obama is "experience". I tend to believe that they're telling the truth, because there was no Bradley effect among Latino voters - in fact, they went for him a little more heavily than the polls suggested they would.

That Obama won Latinos in Illinois, took 46% of their vote in Arizona, and took more than 40% of their vote among Latinos who voted in CA on Feb. 5th (setting aside banked votes)tells me they just haven't heard much about the Senator and don't feel comfortable voting for him.

We didn't hear squat about Edwards "Latino Problem", did we?

In California, we have majority Latino districts with African-American congress critters. If they see Senator Obama on Univision with both girls in his lap and his wife doing friendly interviews, you'll see that voting trend change.

Overall, though, a couple million people got amnesty in the late eighties and walked out of the shadows into a recession, and didn't see their personal stock take off untill there was a Clinton in the White House. There's an element of "the king makes the weather" here too.

None of that, of course, is to say that there are NO racist Latinos, just as some tiny and unknown fraction of men vote for Obama based sexism and some tiny and unknown fraction of women vote for Clinton based on sexism.

[ February 08, 2008, 03:34 AM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete:

quote:

I would need to double-check, but I believe that there's no independent primary.

Faced with "check here if you wish to lose an ability to affect the outcome of the election that's more substantial than an actual vote," many independents flip a coin and pick a party.

What I was trying to say was that I don't believe that registered independents are that large a segment of the population.

quote:

Osama is simply more likable, younger, and is a physically black man that was raised by whites which gives him a double-edged benefit in a country that doesn't grasp the nature of its own "racism." Black people see someone who looks like them, and White people can tell themselves that they aren't racist anymore while supporting someone who doesn't really feel black to them. Put simply, with the exception of his "Latino" problem,** Obama is "black" in all the ways that are politically expedient, and white in all the ways that are politically expedient.

I agree with what you've said, except I have no idea about whether or not he really has a 'Latino problem'. I know some sources have said he has, but I don't know that I'm willing to believe that Latinos are all so knee-jerk.

I've read articles that say that many Latinos support Clinton because of various forms of legislation she has sponsored, and because she has worked hard to reach out to them for some time, but I don't know that this translates into not being willing to vote for Obama versus someone who is much more strongly anti- illegal immigration.

quote:

Obama claims to be against ssm and for ssus, but he'd need to substantiate it with specifics

When I double-checked it yesterday when I wrote that, what I found was that he initially said he was against ssm and for ssu, but then changed his stance to not being against ssm, and would not stand in the way of ssm legislation.

quote:

Who fetched it? I'm curious what that statement looked like in its original form.

Refers back to a statement that Jesse made in the Misc Chat thread where he said many Republicans would vote for Obama because they are tired of divisiveness in government.

quote:

Politics is funny. Try going back to 1986 and trying to persuade folks that the 21st century would begin with the USA declaring war on a small band of cave-dwellers in Afghanistan and that the war would last more than seven years.

Yeah, it is, but many of the people that are supporting him are hardcore Bush/Republican/conservative-haters who aren't inclined to begin with to like anything that surrounds any of those people or parties. They certainly aren't going to become more moderate, even if he is more moderate than they are, and behaves more courteously than they do, which I believe he is and often will.


Jesse:

quote:

Independents and Decline to State increase yearly, and several States don't record a party affiliation at all.

About the increase yearly, I'm not sure if that is true, or is true nationally.

http://tinyurl.com/2d34ul

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=727

I do stand corrected on the number of people who say they are independents, though. I had thought it was lower.


quote:

Why would Democrats cross party lines to vote Republican? Millions did in 1980 1984 2000 and 2004 Presidential election.

I can see 1980, but would be curious to see numbers for the rest.

One of the largest reasons that I don't see Dems or Repubs crossing to vote for each other's candidates is because almost all the polls I've seen since about 2000 indicate that Repubs and Dems see eye to eye on very little. That is, a large proportion of Dems usually dislike Bush, while a large proportion of Repubs support him. Likewise, the WoT, gun registration, right to life, etc usually show fairly substantial percentages of divide based on party affiliation.

Of course, this isn't to say that there aren't issues where there aren't sharp divides, or where people are strongly for or against an issue, and weakly for or against it, compared to the average for their party.

quote:

We all like to think that our issues, the war, or corrupt donors, of SSM, or abortion, or gun rights, are the issues of our parties, and that anyone with the same party on our registration must agree with us. 'Taint so.

While you might like to think that, I don't.

On the other hand, I do think that belonging to a party means something, that the parties themselves are not that similar; that people tend to support what they belong to, and that the culture itself encourages people into combat with the other party, rather than seeing the other side's point of view. As mentioned above, I think polls tend to bear me out on this.

quote:

Most people vote based on how the candidate makes them feel, not on specific policies. It's the same way most of them buy cars.

As depressing as it is to say, I agree with this.

Regarding Latinos, see my comments above.

Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1