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.
Yeah I'm sure they'll be lining up to vote for Obama. Romney does well in suburban areas and that is where elections are won and lost. After the convention Romney will have the rural voters, they are the least of his worries.
Perhaps they won't vote at all in many cases, which will cause O to win.
November is not going to be 2008 for anyone. I'd expect lower turnout on Dems side, as it is not historic. Repubs tend to fall in line in November. So do not worry about the rural vote-they do NOT swing national elections. Swing state voters elect the president, and Il is NOT a swing state.
Same story: no love for Mitt outside of overwhelmingly Democrat urban areas. He has a real problem with conservative, rural voters that will hurt him in November.
Yes they will surely go to Obama if their only other choice is Mitt.
And the whole "low turnout" argument is largely irrelevant. Evangelicals always turnout well, other staunch conservatives will turn out to get rid of Obama. Plus, many forget there are many ballot initiatives/senate races that will motivate conservatives. I know in my state we will have in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and probably gay marriage on the ballot. Not that that will help Romney carry Maryland, or even close, but it could in other states.
Furthermore, even if it is true, I don't care if half of Mississippi voters are bitter and want to sit home. Mississippi isn't going for Obama, and it's all about electoral votes, not popular vote.
Yeah I'm sure they'll be lining up to vote for Obama. Romney does well in suburban areas and that is where elections are won and lost. After the convention Romney will have the rural voters, they are the least of his worries.
Beat me to it. No matter how much you tell them this, it's irrelevant. They won't listen. I wish I could be a fly on the wall to see what they were saying in 08 when Obama was winning all Republican areas/states and Hillary was winning the Democratic strongholds. Didn't seem to hurt Barack too much in the general. And this is purely speculative, but I do not think Hillary would have done as well in 08 as Obama did. I can't see her having won NC, VA, IN, etc. I think she still would've won, but I think Obama's strength in more moderate/conservative areas helped him.
And he only had to outspend Santorum by a 7 to 1 margin. Yeah, that's impressive all right.
I am not sure how much spending money moves voters actually. But using this as a rationalization for Romney winning is not real logical. As his campaign spokesman said, 'it's like accusing the other team of winning in basketball because they are all taller'. If you have money, it's because people believe in you and donate, if you don't, it's because they don't. There is a reason for that...and it's usually that you suck.
Yes they will surely go to Obama if their only other choice is Mitt.
And the whole "low turnout" argument is largely irrelevant. Evangelicals always turnout well, other staunch conservatives will turn out to get rid of Obama. Plus, many forget there are many ballot initiatives/senate races that will motivate conservatives. I know in my state we will have in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and probably gay marriage on the ballot. Not that that will help Romney carry Maryland, or even close, but it could in other states.
Furthermore, even if it is true, I don't care if half of Mississippi voters are bitter and want to sit home. Mississippi isn't going for Obama, and it's all about electoral votes, not popular vote.
No, they won't vote for Obama. But they may not take time to vote for Romney either. And it's the "base" that does the work in the campaign - getting out the vote, making the robocalls. No enthusiasm for that with Romney. It's not about MS, or Illinois. It does matter in OH, and PA though. Romney is way too liberal for today's Republican voter to get enthused over.
I am not sure how much spending money moves voters actually. But using this as a rationalization for Romney winning is not real logical. As his campaign spokesman said, 'it's like accusing the other team of winning in basketball because they are all taller'. If you have money, it's because people believe in you and donate, if you don't, it's because they don't. There is a reason for that...and it's usually that you suck.
Well hang on to that thought for later in the year, LOL.
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.
