Valin Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Mi. 19.1% Romney 102,626 41.3% Santorum 94,211 37.9% Paul 27,909 11.2% Gingrich 16,642 6.7% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 MI 30% reporting Romney 150,974 41.3% Santorum 38.0% 150,260 Paul 46,510 11.8 Gingrich 25,570 6.5% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Support him or not Rick has all the right enemies [media] [/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clearvision Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Looks like Mitt is pulling away some. Still not good for him that he can't beat 2 of the remaining 3's combined numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestVirginiaRebel Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Fox News now projecting that Romney has won Michigan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 @clearvision @WestVirginiaRebel the Romney plan A big bag of money + a ton of negative ads + no ideas = a win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rheo Posted February 29, 2012 Author Share Posted February 29, 2012 The speech Mitt is giving is one of his best. His plan vs Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestVirginiaRebel Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Romney wins pivotal Michigan primary, Arizona In Michigan, Romney held a 4 percent lead-- 41 to 37 percent over former Pennsylvania Sen. Santorum-- with 74 percent of precincts reporting. Texas Rep. Ron Paul received 12 percent and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich received 7 percent. A loss for Romney in Michigan-- the state where he was born and raised and where his father served as governor-- would have been highly problematic for his campaign and would virtually guarantee a protracted primary election season. Despite earlier polls showing Santorum besting Romney in Michigan, Romney and his surrogates had only raised expectations in the state by refusing to express anything but confidence regarding his odds. As of this week, the most recent polls out of Michigan showed Romney edging back up to tie Santorum. In an optimistic speech, Santorum declared, "A month ago they didn't know who we are, but they do now!" Media outlets reported Santorum called Romney to concede, though Santorum did not address the vote totals or his opponent directly during his address. Santorum used much of his speech, delivered at a primary rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., to reinforce his fiscally conservative platform and to laud his 93-year-old grandmother. He segued into appeals to women, including working women, particularly working women, perhaps a sign of Santorum's strategy moving into the Super Tuesday contests Mar. 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 The speech Mitt is giving is one of his best. His plan vs Obama. He has a plan? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsszYxk3srM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MZo7_B9vHg And a utterly shameless plug for....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h759Havq2wU 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4VXvt-tYS4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokke Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 On the bright side, I took a look at the turnout numbers in Michigan, and we at least beat the 2008 turnout this time. I think the Huntsman voters put us over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 On the bright side, I took a look at the turnout numbers in Michigan, and we at least beat the 2008 turnout this time. I think the Huntsman voters put us over the top. Who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logicnreason Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 It has been posited that since the election of John Kennedy, the presidency has been "bought" more than "won". Go here to see who's going to be able to "buy" their way in...http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php?ql3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 It has been posited that since the election of John Kennedy, the presidency has been "bought" more than "won". Go here to see who's going to be able to "buy" their way in...http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php?ql3 Two points A. It is (rightly) said money is the mothers milk of politics B. As George Will has pointed out we spend more money on snack chips than political campaigns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCTexan Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 B. As George Will has pointed out we spend more money on snack chips than political campaigns. That may be true... But I'm not sure that a high level of spending for either produces such great results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 B. As George Will has pointed out we spend more money on snack chips than political campaigns. That may be true... But I'm not sure that a high level of spending for either produces such great results. Thank for that image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokke Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 B. As George Will has pointed out we spend more money on snack chips than political campaigns. That may be true... But I'm not sure that a high level of spending for either produces such great results. More than anything else, that is a testiment to the wonders of engineering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rheo Posted March 1, 2012 Author Share Posted March 1, 2012 Good gosh. Must be time for a new thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 The Boney Blond Broad doesn't approve of Rick Santorum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Mitt Romney DC Outsider...Well maybe not so much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollyannaish Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Wow. Been watching closely the ads and robocalls in Washington State ahead of the caucuses this weekend. 1. Most hard hittting/negative ads: Ron Paul 2. Most hard hitting/negative robocalls: Rick Santorum 3. Windiest robocalls and ads: Newt Gingrich 4. Where's Waldo award: Mitt Romney Ron Paul is running a very effective campaign here to be honest. He really does focus on Caucus states. I suspect it will be Paul or Romney in first place, followed by Gingrich with Santorum with a less than terrific showing. At least in the precincts on the East Side. I am less sure on the West side, but I suspect that Paul will do pretty well there, but Romney will pull it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestVirginiaRebel Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Santorum lumps McCain, Dole, H.W. Bush into losing clan of GOP moderates "We want a conservative nominee because that's our best chance of winning. Look at the races in the last 30 years, we nominated a moderate: [John] McCain, [bob] Dole, Gerald Ford. When George [H.W.] Bush ran for re-election back in 1992, after raising taxes and increasing spending. They all ran as moderates. We all lost," Santorum said. "Every time we've run as a conservative, we've won," the candidate continued. "Why? Because Americans want a choice. If it's a difference between somebody, Tweedledum and Tweedledee, you know what, this country is going to probably going to stick with the person they know. We need to have a sharp contrast. Someone who paints a very different vision for America." Is this really fair? IMO, Bush the Elder lost mainly because of the economy and the perception that he was out of touch, Dole lost because of perceptions over his age and the fact that he was running against an incumbent during a healthy economy, and McCain lost partly because of Sarah Palin being (then) seen as unready and Obama's popularity as a candidate. Romney has his own problems, but each of the nominees mentioned lost for different reasons, under different circumstances. (It should also be noted that Eisenhower, Nixon, and Bush the Younger-all generally moderate-won reelection, although also each under different circumstances and in different times. Reagan won by being conservative, but he also had broad appeal and a message that the average person could relate to. While Reagan wasn't afraid of a fight, he didn't win by being angry, which is what I get from Santorum a lot of the time.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Santorum lumps McCain, Dole, H.W. Bush into losing clan of GOP moderates "We want a conservative nominee because that's our best chance of winning. Look at the races in the last 30 years, we nominated a moderate: [John] McCain, [bob] Dole, Gerald Ford. When George [H.W.] Bush ran for re-election back in 1992, after raising taxes and increasing spending. They all ran as moderates. We all lost," Santorum said. "Every time we've run as a conservative, we've won," the candidate continued. "Why? Because Americans want a choice. If it's a difference between somebody, Tweedledum and Tweedledee, you know what, this country is going to probably going to stick with the person they know. We need to have a sharp contrast. Someone who paints a very different vision for America." Is this really fair? IMO, Bush the Elder lost mainly because of the economy and the perception that he was out of touch, Dole lost because of perceptions over his age and the fact that he was running against an incumbent during a healthy economy, and McCain lost partly because of Sarah Palin being (then) seen as unready and Obama's popularity as a candidate. Romney has his own problems, but each of the nominees mentioned lost for different reasons, under different circumstances. (It should also be noted that Eisenhower, Nixon, and Bush the Younger-all generally moderate-won reelection, although also each under different circumstances and in different times. Reagan won by being conservative, but he also had broad appeal and a message that the average person could relate to. While Reagan wasn't afraid of a fight, he didn't win by being angry, which is what I get from Santorum a lot of the time.) Bush the elder really was a moderate Republican...remember Voo Doo economic, Kinder gentler conservatism? I think he won in 88 for two reasons, a lot of people thought it was going to be a 3rd Reagan term, and "Read My Lips No New Taxes" When he went back on Read My Lips...his campaign was toast, because a lot of people believed him. Of course it didn't help that he was running against one of the best politicians I've ever seen...Bill Clinton. In 08 if it had been Bill instead of Hillary today Obama would be known a Senator Obama. Without Sarah McCain would have lost even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pollyannaish Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 There is an ad running in our area that is not anti-illegal immigration, but anti-immigration all together. It focuses on reducing LEGAL immigration. It is full of visual images of hispanics and middle-easterners and it's got me ticked off. It is running during the GOP caucuses. I did not catch the organization, but it is one of those ads that is NOT helping the GOP in this area. Anyone know who it might be sponsored by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now