Especially in Michigan

[Shady]

You think they amended the rules for 2008 in 2010 Shady? Seriously Shady just say you were wrong and that punked was right and move on.

You don't understand. It's the states themselves that decide how they wish to award their delegates. If the RNC wants to punish them for it, they can, but they haven't suggested that they will. Because that only pisses off the voters in that particular state. Voters you need to come out in the fall.

Like I said. Take a lot at Romney's delegate total. You'll see that he's already been awarded winner take all states.

[punked]

You don't understand. It's the states themselves that decide how they wish to award their delegates. If the RNC wants to punish them for it, they can, but they haven't suggested that they will. Because that only pisses off the voters in that particular state. Voters you need to come out in the fall.

Like I said. Take a lot at Romney's delegate total. You'll see that he's already been awarded winner take all states.

Again it will come down how many delegates Romney has come convention.

As for the delegate total, those aren't real Shady, those are estimates by the media. So Romney might have right now all of Flordia's delegates but they still could be cut in half depending on how close the race is. I didn't write the rules Shady the Republican party did at the last convention, how they decide to follow them will be up to them. However having been to conventions I know that given a close race if it comes down to 100 delegates Romeny better expect a fight over this from the other guys. That is a reality.

[Shady]

You don't believe me? How about The Huffington Post?

With his victory in Florida, Romney won 50 delegates

HP

[punked]

You don't believe me? How about The Huffington Post?

Again not official Shady. Don't believe me? How about the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/newt-gingrich-florida-convention_n_1249908.html

[j44]

But that's kind of a made-up narrative, don't you think?

Do people really think of Michigan when they think of Romney? I understand Massachusetts, and I understand Utah... but other than having been born there why would Michigan be a stronghold for Romney? It's like saying Toronto should be a power zone for Stephen Harper.

Michigan seems like it should be ideal for the "blue collar Republican" spiel that Santorum has based his campaign around, and "he opposed the automaker bailout" ought to be a particular vulnerability for Romney in Michigan I would think.

-k

I'm saying that Romney should at least have an advantage there. I don't think it is a huge stronghold for him but if he loses it, in my opinion, it can't be a good sign for his campaign.

I agree that the state is more blue collar and might be more in line with Santorum in some respects and I think the number of evangelicals there is under appreciated and while I see your point I don't think the Harper/Toronto comparison fits unless Harper's dad was Premier of Ontario and a successful businessman there.

[Shady]

Again not official Shady. Don't believe me? How about the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/newt-gingrich-florida-convention_n_1249908.html

If you're unaware, Gingrich decided not to contest the delegate count. Your story again, is old and outdated.

[Shady]

I'm saying that Romney should at least have an advantage there. I don't think it is a huge stronghold for him but if he loses it, in my opinion, it can't be a good sign for his campaign.

I agree. If he loses Michigan, the campaign will take on a new tone, and he'll probably do poorly on Super Tuesday. He really needs to win Michigan, even if it's by the skin of his teeth. If he wins both primaries tonight, the nomination should be his by the end of March. Especially when winner take all states like California vote, which has about 150 delegates alone.

[punked]

If you're unaware, Gingrich decided not to contest the delegate count. Your story again, is old and outdated.

In case you are unaware anyone can bring a motion to the floor of a Convention especially someone with lots and lots of delegates. If you think that if come down a few delegates that this wont be an issue then you are a fool.

[punked]

I agree. If he loses Michigan, the campaign will take on a new tone, and he'll probably do poorly on Super Tuesday. He really needs to win Michigan, even if it's by the skin of his teeth. If he wins both primaries tonight, the nomination should be his by the end of March. Especially when winner take all states like California vote, which has about 150 delegates alone.

If it take till California votes to wrap this up then Republicans wont have a hope in hell.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm saying that Romney should at least have an advantage there. I don't think it is a huge stronghold for him but if he loses it, in my opinion, it can't be a good sign for his campaign.

I agree that the state is more blue collar and might be more in line with Santorum in some respects and I think the number of evangelicals there is under appreciated and while I see your point I don't think the Harper/Toronto comparison fits unless Harper's dad was Premier of Ontario and a successful businessman there.

The only way Romney isn't going to take Michigan is if enough of the voters who aren't Republican vote for Santorum to hurt Romney/the Republicans' chance of winning - and that idea is circulating about the state. Santorum isn't more representative of the state - and Romney is a big name here. Not taking Michigan could hurt him.

[j44]

The only way Romney isn't going to take Michigan is if enough of the voters who aren't Republican vote for Santorum to hurt Romney/the Republicans' chance of winning - and that idea is circulating about the state. Santorum isn't more representative of the state - and Romney is a big name here. Not taking Michigan could hurt him.

I'm sure some people will jump down my throat for saying this but I'm not convinced that Obama would beat Santorum as easily as Dems think. I was with this line of thinking at first and there is no doubt that Santorum's mishandling of the religious issues/talk would hurt him in a general election but I think Dems should be careful for what they wish for.

[bush_cheney2004]

If it take till California votes to wrap this up then Republicans wont have a hope in hell.

They already don't have a hope in hell.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm sure some people will jump down my throat for saying this but I'm not convinced that Obama would beat Santorum as easily as Dems think. I was with this line of thinking at first and there is no doubt that Santorum's mishandling of the religious issues/talk would hurt him in a general election but I think Dems should be careful for what they wish for.

I don't think that they think Santorum will win the nomination, but rather that Romney's losing Michigan could be used to hurt him during his campaign after he's given the nomination - so it's not so much that the Dems are wishing that Santorum would be the Rep. candidate .... I honestly don't think that most people think that will happen. But if Romney can't get the majority vote needed to win the nomination, if he can't even take Michigan, if it has to go to a convention vote, it would weaken the Republican candidate - ie: Romney, most likely.

Edited February 28, 2012 by American Woman

[Shady]

They already don't have a hope in hell.

I slightly disagree. I tend to agree with you overall, but they certainly have a chance, albeit a small one. 6 months in politics is an eternity. After all, even Reagan was behind Carter by double-digits all the way until October.

This is why Obama is beatable, even though he's a favourite to win...

Home prices fell in December in most US cities

Prices declined in 18 of 20 cities in final months of 2011, prices back to 2002 level

AP

Durable Goods Demand Falls Most in 3 Years

CNBC

[Guest American Woman]

They already don't have a hope in hell.

I have to wonder why some of the candidates are even trying so hard - the person who wins the nomination and loses the election likely won't get another shot at it; I would think that they would rather wait for the 2016 election, when there's no incumbent to go up against.

Edited February 28, 2012 by American Woman

[olpfan1]

Shady, Its a 100% guaranteed loss for the religious zealots party

Americans arent that bat shiat crazy

[j44]

I don't think that they think Santorum will win the nomination, but rather that Romney's losing Michigan could be used to hurt him during his campaign after he's given the nomination - so it's not so much that the Dems are wishing that Santorum would be the Rep. candidate .... I honestly don't think that most people think that will happen. But if Romney can't get the majority vote needed to win the nomination, if he can't even take Michigan, if it has to go to a convention vote, it would weaken the Republican candidate - ie: Romney, most likely.

Good point.

I slightly disagree. I tend to agree with you overall, but they certainly have a chance, albeit a small one. 6 months in politics is an eternity. After all, even Reagan was behind Carter by double-digits all the way until October.

This is why Obama is beatable, even though he's a favourite to win...

And keep in mind a lot of Dems thought Reagan would be the easiest to beat. Also keep in mind that a few months ago Obama was the underdog.

I have to wonder why some of the candidates are even trying so hard - the person who wins the nomination and loses the election likely won't get another shot at it; I would think that they would rather wait for the 2016 election, when there's no incumbent to go up against.

Romney doesn't get another shot anyway. Santorum is doing well and getting national attention which will help him in 4 years, Paul wants to get his message out there and possibly help his son Rand for 2016 and Newt, well, Newt is Newt.

Shady, Its a 100% guaranteed loss for the religious zealots party

Not if the economy goes downhill.

Edited February 28, 2012 by j44

[olpfan1]

Not if the economy goes downhill.

I doubt it even if that happens, Obama is the safe choice..Romney would be the better choice but he's flippy floppy

no one knows what he stands for

[punked]

Voter turn out is down again today in Mich. Romney is really bringing out the base eh Shady?

[Guest American Woman]

Voter turn out is down again today in Mich. Romney is really bringing out the base eh Shady?

Perhaps the low voter turnout will work in Romney's favor ...

[punked]

Perhaps the low voter turnout will work in Romney's favor ...

Maybe but it speaks more to how the base feels, meaning not good about this one. It might be good for Romney short term it is bad long term.

[Guest American Woman]

Maybe but it speaks more to how the base feels, meaning not good about this one. It might be good for Romney short term it is bad long term.

If it gives him a strong win in Michigan, I don't see how it could hurt him.

Edited February 28, 2012 by American Woman

[punked]

If it gives him a strong win in Michigan, I don't see how it could hurt him.

His win wont be strong no matter if turn is up or down. Santorium actually benefits from lower turn out because his voters are more committed.

[Guest American Woman]

His win wont be strong no matter if turn is up or down. Santorium actually benefits from lower turn out because his voters are more committed.

Everyone voting for Santorum isn't necessarily a "committed Santorum voter." As I said earlier, some Democrats/independents will be voting for him just to hurt the Republican party. For this reason, I'm not sure I agree with letting non-Republicans vote for the Republican candidate; obviously a non-Republican is going to vote for the candidate who is closest to their ideals, not Republican ideals - and since Dems don't have to vote for a candidate this time around, that leaves them free to vote for the Republican candidate. I've decided not to vote for this reason. I'm a registered Democrat, so I'll leave the Republican primary to the Republicans.

[punked]

Everyone voting for Santorum isn't necessarily a "committed Santorum voter." As I said earlier, some Democrats/independents will be voting for him just to hurt the Republican party. For this reason, I'm not sure I agree with letting non-Republicans vote for the Republican candidate; obviously a non-Republican is going to vote for the candidate who is closest to their ideals, not Republican ideals - and since Dems don't have to vote for a candidate this time around, that leaves them free to vote for the Republican candidate. I've decided not to vote for this reason. I'm a registered Democrat, so I'll leave the Republican primary to the Republicans.

Romney's team are the ones who fought for an open primary. I agree primaries should be closed but when they aren't why not vote. Heck Romney himself voted in the 1991 Democratic primary.