jbg Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 He does not stand a better chance in Virginia,or Ohio (especially not Ohio with its 150,000 direction Auto jobs) I just can not believe people buy into that lie. Romney stands no better chance then Santorum in any of these "swing states" because of his past stance on policy and because of who he is and how he acts. I mean Michigan is off the table already because of Romney. Between Obama and Santorum the UAW is not going to favor Santorum. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
punked Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 Between Obama and Santorum the UAW is not going to favor Santorum. It isn't the UAW votes Santorum would win, it is the 1-3 million spin off jobs that Romney would have killed that will motivated to vote when they wouldn't have otherwise. The Dem Super Pacs will make sure everyone of those people are motivated by the Romney wanted to kill all your jobs message across the whole Auto Belt. It isn't the people who switch their vote, it is the people who are motivated to come out and vote if Romney is the nominee really. Romney as Nominee actually puts India back into play which is kinda crazy to think about. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 ... Romney as Nominee actually puts India back into play which is kinda crazy to think about. I'll say...if Romney can put "India" into play he will have more than enough votes to win. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
punked Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 I'll say...if Romney can put "India" into play he will have more than enough votes to win. Great typo on my part if I do say so myself. Indiana. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 12, 2012 Author Report Posted March 12, 2012 The Romney Campaign must have miscounted when they released their press release yesterday saying he needs to take 50% of the remaining delegates then eh? What an incompetent campaign can't even count how many delegates they need. Why would anyone vote for them? My math was wrong. He needs just under 50% if he doesn't get delegates from anyone else. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Shady Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 My math was wrong. He needs just under 50% if he doesn't get delegates from anyone else. I think I read it's 47%. But it's actually much less than that when you figure he's going to win huge winner take all states like California and New York. Quote
punked Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) I think I read it's 47%. But it's actually much less than that when you figure he's going to win huge winner take all states like California and New York. But if doesn't win those states he needs like 60-70% of the delegates so..... Also Santorum is on the climb again so Romney will have spend another 20 million to destroy him. It has gotten to a point where in any other year Romney would not win but with Super Pacs Romney is winning through having money. Welcome to democracy. Edited March 12, 2012 by punked Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 But if doesn't win those states he needs like 60-70% of the delegates so..... No he doesn't...as long as Gingrich and Paul bleed votes to the bitter end Romney will be fine. Also Santorum is on the climb again so Romney will have spend another 20 million to destroy him. It has gotten to a point where in any other year Romney would not win but with Super Pacs Romney is winning through having money. Welcome to democracy. Super Pac money is a direct result and backlash from do gooders trying to control political campaign financing. They got bitch slapped by the USSC and now even more money is part of the mix. In America, more money = more speech, and it has always been that way. Wait and see how much cash Obama and Pac(s) bring to the game. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
j44 Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 But if doesn't win those states he needs like 60-70% of the delegates so..... Also Santorum is on the climb again so Romney will have spend another 20 million to destroy him. It has gotten to a point where in any other year Romney would not win but with Super Pacs Romney is winning through having money. Welcome to democracy. You could also argue that he could have won long ago if Newt etc didn't have billionaires funding their Super PACS. I read that Newt's Super PAC outspent his campaign 70:1 in Georgia. 70! No he doesn't...as long as Gingrich and Paul bleed votes to the bitter end Romney will be fine. Super Pac money is a direct result and backlash from do gooders trying to control political campaign financing. They got bitch slapped by the USSC and now even more money is part of the mix. In America, more money = more speech, and it has always been that way. Wait and see how much cash Obama and Pac(s) bring to the game. Obama has had 100 fundraisers while in office. I think that is twice as many as Bush had at this point in his term. And I would guess Bush's was the most up to that point. We want MOAR! Quote
jbg Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 But if doesn't win those states he needs like 60-70% of the delegates so.....There is no way Romney loses either New York or California. Also Santorum is on the climb again so Romney will have spend another 20 million to destroy him. It has gotten to a point where in any other year Romney would not win but with Super Pacs Romney is winning through having money. Welcome to democracy. Yes, it is unfortunate that national campaigns in a 330 million person country cost money. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
punked Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 You could also argue that he could have won long ago if Newt etc didn't have billionaires funding their Super PACS. I read that Newt's Super PAC outspent his campaign 70:1 in Georgia. 70! Obama has had 100 fundraisers while in office. I think that is twice as many as Bush had at this point in his term. And I would guess Bush's was the most up to that point. We want MOAR! Nope Romney out spent everyone in almost every state including South Carolina. Romney and his super Pac Outspent 2 to 1 in South Carolina, but as we learned in Michigan and Ohio Romney needs to out spend his opponents into the ground closer to 5-6 to 1 to even have a fighting chance at winning a state. Which is why he will be toast against Obama. http://www.adweek.com/news/television/romney-outspends-gop-pack-sc-137747 With Citizen United all politicians need to spend more time raising money and less time governing to even have a chance anymore. Quote
Shady Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 With Citizen United all politicians need to spend more time raising money and less time governing to even have a chance anymore. You obviously have no idea what the Citizen's United case is about. It has very little to do with politicians. Quote
Shady Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 Nope Romney out spent everyone in almost every state Oh well, that's why Obama won. Quote
j44 Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 Nope Romney out spent everyone in almost every state including South Carolina. Romney and his super Pac Outspent 2 to 1 in South Carolina, but as we learned in Michigan and Ohio Romney needs to out spend his opponents into the ground closer to 5-6 to 1 to even have a fighting chance at winning a state. Which is why he will be toast against Obama. http://www.adweek.com/news/television/romney-outspends-gop-pack-sc-137747 With Citizen United all politicians need to spend more time raising money and less time governing to even have a chance anymore. While it helped him at sideline Gingrich etc earlier isn't the Super PAC money now the only thing keeping his opponents alive? I'd bet that Obama still held those fundraisers regardless of the outcome of the C. United case. Quote
Shady Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 I'd bet that Obama still held those fundraisers regardless of the outcome of the C. United case. Obama's the biggest political hypocrite in our lifetime. This is the guy that vowed to use public financing to fund his campaign. Then promptly broke his promise when he realized he could raise more money without it. This is also the same guy that called Super PAC's an afront to democracy, and the a short time later, gave the go ahead to start his own Super PAC. He's the do as I say, not as I do President. Quote
j44 Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 Obama's the biggest political hypocrite in our lifetime. This is the guy that vowed to use public financing to fund his campaign. Then promptly broke his promise when he realized he could raise more money without it. This is also the same guy that called Super PAC's an afront to democracy, and the a short time later, gave the go ahead to start his own Super PAC. He's the do as I say, not as I do President. While hypocritical they are practical decisions. He deserves criticism but I doubt there are too many politicians out there that would forgo an advantage like the one he took in 2008. And it's not like he is going to say 'Ok, I'll give Mitt a multi-billionaire dollar advantage in 2012 just because I'm against the USSC decision.' It would be political suicide. Quote
punked Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 While it helped him at sideline Gingrich etc earlier isn't the Super PAC money now the only thing keeping his opponents alive? I'd bet that Obama still held those fundraisers regardless of the outcome of the C. United case. At this point everyone has to raise more money, and money means more because of Citizen United. I mean look at Georgia, Newt spent something like 21,000 dollars from his campaign everything else was from Super Pacs. Money now buys elections, it buys Romney, it buys Obama, that is just how it is now. Thanks Supreme Court. Quote
Shady Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 Money now buys elections Money now buys electiosn huh? Not when Obama spent a record amount of money on a record amount of negative ads in 2008. Quote
punked Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 Money now buys electiosn huh? Not when Obama spent a record amount of money on a record amount of negative ads in 2008. He also had a record amount of donors something we can't say about anyone in the Republican Feild, their money is coming from 10-20 donors Obama's came form more then a million people. I agree with you though Shady we should take money out of politics. However it is going to be a part then there should be a limit which comes from one source, thus we wont have the Pepsi candidate vs. the Coke candidate. Maybe that is the country the American people want though. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 ..... Maybe that is the country the American people want though. That's right...please keep those cheap skin-flint election campaigns in Canada. In the USA, money talks and bullshit walks. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
punked Posted March 12, 2012 Report Posted March 12, 2012 That's right...please keep those cheap skin-flint election campaigns in Canada. In the USA, money talks and bullshit walks. Hey if the American people want to see the guy bought bought by Ford run against the guy bought by GM in a reality show then more to them. I don't actually know that is what they want but that is where they are headed. Quote
August1991 Posted March 13, 2012 Report Posted March 13, 2012 Wait and see how much cash Obama and Pac(s) bring to the game.Obama's billion is like an H-Bomb. It scares away any intelligent competitor. As a result, the Republicans are left with the crazy/quixotic candidates.Obama's strategy is the logic of shock-and-awe applied to campaign politics. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 13, 2012 Report Posted March 13, 2012 Money now buys electiosn huh? Not when Obama spent a record amount of money on a record amount of negative ads in 2008. So, you just proved your first point with your second one. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 13, 2012 Report Posted March 13, 2012 Hey if the American people want to see the guy bought bought by Ford run against the guy bought by GM in a reality show then more to them. I don't actually know that is what they want but that is where they are headed. Well, what really happened is that the "American people" bought GM but not Ford. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
punked Posted March 13, 2012 Report Posted March 13, 2012 Well, what really happened is that the "American people" bought GM but not Ford. I wonder if that will have effect when the guy who is owned and paid for by GM runs against the guy who is bought by Ford? It will be an interesting thing to see when this happens in the future. Thanks Citizens United. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.