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.
We've heard a lot from political pundits lately about how long and drawn out this race has been. This got me curious: How valid is that assertion? So I went back to see where we were at in 2008.
The first big differences was that Super Tuesday was in early February and not early March. The other important thing to consider was that two huge states voted on that Super Tuesday: California and New York. So it was a true make or break. This year's Super Tuesday wasn't built to be a make or break.
If we throw out California and New York, here's where the numbers were 4 years ago: McCain: 481
Romney: 277
Huckabee: 210
Paul: 14
So here is where we are right now: Romney: 404
Santorum: 165
Gingrich: 106
Paul: 66
Now once you throw New York and California totals back into the post Super Tuesday tally, it looked like this in 2008: McCain: 740
Romney: 289
Huckabee: 210
Paul: 14
It's obvious why Romney dropped out at that point. The really strange thing was that Huckabee didn't.
If anyone thinks that the GOP race has dragged on for too long, it must be pointed out that it was by design. Romney's lead proportionally speaking is larger post Super Tuesday than McCain's was. But because all thee big states haven't voted yet, nobody is going to drop out. But the whole line that Santorum is doing well and Romney is under-performing just doesn't jive with the numbers we have. Romney is having a stronger showing so far than McCain did in 2008. The problem is that the GOP designed this thing to drag on and on and on and on. Super Tuesday went from "Super" to "Meh." There were a lot more delegates at stake four years ago.
So what's with all the MSNBC and CNN talking heads going on about how Romney isn't having a strong enough showing?
And from a purely pro Ron Paul point of view, we can obviously see that he's getting a lot more interest this time around than last time. We'll get the rest of you eventually, it's just a matter of time!
So what's with all the MSNBC and CNN talking heads going on about how Romney isn't having a strong enough showing?
I'm watching Morning Joe on MSNBC and they're discussing how last night was big for Romney. Romney's win in Ohio was a big step forward because the eastern part of that state was assumed to be solid Santorum territory. And they're also talking about how the road ahead will be very difficult for Santorum, but that Gingrich could do well over the next two weeks in AL, MS, and LA.
I'm watching Morning Joe on MSNBC and they're discussing how last night was big for Romney. Romney's win in Ohio was a big step forward because the eastern part of that state was assumed to be solid Santorum territory. And they're also talking about how the road ahead will be very difficult for Santorum, but that Gingrich could do well over the next two weeks in AL, MS, and LA.
What are you watching on MSNBC that's different?
Morning Joe is a great show. And Fox is just as bad as MSNBC when it comes to setting unrealistically high standards for Romney. Same goes for just about every media outlet I know.
Romney has the misfortune of being the first to run in this newly-designed system. I'm very glad this thread was posted - Romney would certainly have won California and New York. And with that momentum on his side, I think he would have won Texas just as McCain did.
We've heard a lot from political pundits lately about how long and drawn out this race has been. This got me curious: How valid is that assertion? So I went back to see where we were at in 2008.
The first big differences was that Super Tuesday was in early February and not early March. The other important thing to consider was that two huge states voted on that Super Tuesday: California and New York. So it was a true make or break. This year's Super Tuesday wasn't built to be a make or break.
If we throw out California and New York, here's where the numbers were 4 years ago: McCain: 481
Romney: 277
Huckabee: 210
Paul: 14
So here is where we are right now: Romney: 404
Santorum: 165
Gingrich: 106
Paul: 66
Now once you throw New York and California totals back into the post Super Tuesday tally, it looked like this in 2008: McCain: 740
Romney: 289
Huckabee: 210
Paul: 14
It's obvious why Romney dropped out at that point. The really strange thing was that Huckabee didn't.
If anyone thinks that the GOP race has dragged on for too long, it must be pointed out that it was by design. Romney's lead proportionally speaking is larger post Super Tuesday than McCain's was. But because all thee big states haven't voted yet, nobody is going to drop out. But the whole line that Santorum is doing well and Romney is under-performing just doesn't jive with the numbers we have. Romney is having a stronger showing so far than McCain did in 2008. The problem is that the GOP designed this thing to drag on and on and on and on. Super Tuesday went from "Super" to "Meh." There were a lot more delegates at stake four years ago.
So what's with all the MSNBC and CNN talking heads going on about how Romney isn't having a strong enough showing?
And from a purely pro Ron Paul point of view, we can obviously see that he's getting a lot more interest this time around than last time. We'll get the rest of you eventually, it's just a matter of time!
Are Romney's wins primarily in large urban areas? Those places will go Democrat in the General Election.
It doesn't matter what region we're talking about, these are all Republicans voting (Well, except for the Santorum Democrats crossing over). I live in a large metropolitan area in a blue state, in one of the most Democratic regions of said state. The fact that I'm surrounded by Democrats doesn't make me any less of a Republican
But I guess Alaska and Idaho never got the memo about rural voters hating Romney
When the President appeals to rural voters and Romney has to fight in the areas where he was stomped by Santorum and kicked in the teeth by Gingrich's movie showing Romney destroying small town jobs....every rural district becomes a Swing Play.
When the President appeals to rural voters and Romney has to fight in the areas where he was stomped by Santorum and kicked in the teeth by Gingrich's movie showing Romney destroying small town jobs....every rural district becomes a Swing Play.
You're right... If that were true. In what world does Obama appeal to rural voters? When the election comes, they will go for Romney. As for turnout, there's not much enthusiasm for Obama either. I'd say that one's a wash
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.
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.
