Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perry may support the Grinch, but Perry backers seem to be moving to Romney. I suspect this is just one of many. This is too bad, it would be fun to watch Obama make a bumbling idiot of Newt in debates.
Perry may support the Grinch, but Perry backers seem to be moving to Romney. I suspect this is just one of many. This is too bad, it would be fun to watch Obama make a bumbling idiot of Newt in debates.
Apparently, 3 polls have Gingrich ahead of Romney. Guess Romney's ex-advisor was right that Romney won't win SC.
Speaking from a completely neutral point of view, Mitt Romney is a very different candidate from past candidates. Everyone else needs the South to win the nomination. Mitt doesn't and any pathway to the nomination for him concedes that he probably loses most of the South. In order to be a real threat to Mitt, Gingrich has to beat him in Florida and Nevada.
Nevada is a total role reversal when it comes to one of Newt's biggest advantages: Religion. Mormons are the single most dominant religion in Nevada and you can bet they don't appreciate Evangelicals demonizing their religion in their efforts to destroy Romney purely on a religious basis.
Gingrich also doesn't have a strong foothold in the North, but Romney should do very well there.
There are many many bad things about Newt, but there is no reality (current or alternate) where Obama can win a debate against Newt.
Unlikely we will ever find out. By the way, just because Newt says he is a great debater, doesn't make him one. Newt's debate technique is simply, if he has no answer or valid argument, he just deflects condescendingly and implies the opponent is too dumb to understand the subject. I use the same technique quite often.
I loved his responses to the overt race-bating by the moderators. I didn't think of Newt's characterization of Obama as a food stamp president as having anything to do with race. Only liberals seem to see that. That's usually how it is really. Conservatives will make racially benign comment about helping those who are poor and the liberals are the ones to make it racist.
I thought the "food stamp" applause/exchange was of the lowest
common denominator I have seen at any debate.
Stand up and applaud that - I don't think so....
Newt needs to siphon away some of Romney's momentum. This will allow Paul enough opportunity to catch up and overtake Mittens.
Honestly, I'd like to see Dr Paul as the GOP nominee. It would make for an election with a distinct choice. And some really good debates. Sadly, I don't think there's much chance that the GOP would ever nominate Paul.
What all the articles and polls leave out is that Gingrich and Santorum, not being on the ballots in three big states are UNELECTABLE. This point needs to be DRIVEN through peoples thick skulls again and again!
What all the articles and polls leave out is that Gingrich and Santorum, not being on the ballots in three big states are UNELECTABLE. This point needs to be DRIVEN through peoples thick skulls again and again!
You're right, I forgot about that. And if more states demand eligibility proof like Georgia, perhaps Obama won't be on the ballot either! Let the good times roll.
It is amazing that the overt racism that Newt displayed during the most recent debate is working out so well for him in SC. It tells you a lot about the voters of SC and the south in general.
Your generalizations only hold water in your own mind...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.