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.
The biggest single reason why Governor Romney is the front runner is that he has had the overwhelming advantage in money spent and in "boots on the ground" running his campaign in states across the country.
I don't think it's his message that is winning voters. I wonder how much fight he has when he is under fire.
So if he is winning with money and organization, then what happens when...
In the general election, President Obama will have all the advantages against Romney that Romney currently has against his Republican rivals. Barack Obama will have boots on the ground everywhere — not just members of the Democratic Party organization but thousands of labor union members as well.
The GOP needs to have someone with the message, some plans, and the fight to win votes against Obama.
The biggest single reason why Governor Romney is the front runner is that he has had the overwhelming advantage in money spent and in "boots on the ground" running his campaign in states across the country.
I don't think it's his message that is winning voters. I wonder how much fight he has when he is under fire.
So if he is winning with money and organization, then what happens when...
In the general election, President Obama will have all the advantages against Romney that Romney currently has against his Republican rivals. Barack Obama will have boots on the ground everywhere — not just members of the Democratic Party organization but thousands of labor union members as well.
The GOP needs to have someone with the message, some plans, and the fight to win votes against Obama.
That's really not a good article. Go dig in to what the Freakonomics folks dug up about spending in elections. It's not as big a deal as you think.
Romney is willing because of who is he. Were he a regular Christian of any sort, he'd have won the nomination in 2008 and he'd have squared this up already. Evangelicals aren't big on voting for a mormon plain and simple. If there was another good candidate in the mix, there is not, he or she would have given Romney a run for it.
In terms of your comments about plans, nobody in the GOP can have any mainstream plans or they'd be booted out by the rather loud and yet stupid fringe elements at the right of the party.
Have either of you seen Romney in person? Are your biases driven by the media or because you've actually been to a campaign event and listened to his entire message?
That's really not a good article. Go dig in to what the Freakonomics folks dug up about spending in elections. It's not as big a deal as you think.
Romney is willing because of who is he. Were he a regular Christian of any sort, he'd have won the nomination in 2008 and he'd have squared this up already. Evangelicals aren't big on voting for a mormon plain and simple. If there was another good candidate in the mix, there is not, he or she would have given Romney a run for it.
In terms of your comments about plans, nobody in the GOP can have any mainstream plans or they'd be booted out by the rather loud and yet stupid fringe elements at the right of the party.
Romney's flip flopping, support for health care reform, and being a Mormon are what is causing him to have to slog long and hard through the nominating process. He's up against Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. He's having a hard time beating those two clowns. Just imagine how much trouble he will have against Obama.
Romney's flip flopping, support for health care reform, and being a Mormon are what is causing him to have to slog long and hard through the nominating process. He's up against Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. He's having a hard time beating those two clowns. Just imagine how much trouble he will have against Obama.
There's a distinct difference between a primary battle and the general election.
There's a distinct difference between a primary battle and the general election.
There is, but when you have trouble locking up your own party's support that usually means there will be trouble in the general election for the weak candidate.
Romney's flip flopping, support for health care reform, and being a Mormon are what is causing him to have to slog long and hard through the nominating process. He's up against Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. He's having a hard time beating those two clowns. Just imagine how much trouble he will have against Obama.
The label has stuck well, but Romney "flip-flopping" is most certainly not unique to Romney. Barack Obama, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are just as guilty of doing so if not more so. It's really just a nifty catch-phrase. Changing and adapting to vastly different population demographics is what makes politicians what they are. What works in Massachusetts -- probably the bluest of blue states -- will not necessarily work in a massively red state like Mississippi. You cannot be a staunch right-wing Republican in a blue state if you actually want to win any election ever. Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger were both governors of the very blue state of California and their respective tenures as governor there were heavy with compromise and accepting a certain amount of liberal ideology. If you want to get elected and re-elected, it's a political imperative there. But when Reagan became POTUS, he proved to be very conservative.
I think he's been weak on defending and responding when challenged on flip-flopping.
Consider that if Barack Obama actually takes any action to lower the price of gasoline, he will have flip-flopped himself. His entire theory was that developing alternative fuel sources while stonewalling oil companies on new oil production would lower the price by not lowering the price -- the new fuels would be cheaper so Americans would start using them. Obama wanted gas prices to go up, not down. Obviously that hasn't worked and he bet on the wrong alternative fuels IMHO. So we're about to watch Obama flip-flop (he really has no choice if he wants to sidestep any blame for high prices at the pump).
If being consistent actually mattered then everyone would be voting for Ron Paul. Obviously, being consistent is not a big priority in a POTUS.
The label has stuck well, but Romney "flip-flopping" is most certainly not unique to Romney. Barack Obama, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are just as guilty of doing so if not more so. It's really just a nifty catch-phrase. Changing and adapting to vastly different population demographics is what makes politicians what they are. What works in Massachusetts -- probably the bluest of blue states -- will not necessarily work in a massively red state like Mississippi. You cannot be a staunch right-wing Republican in a blue state if you actually want to win any election ever. Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger were both governors of the very blue state of California and their respective tenures as governor there were heavy with compromise and accepting a certain amount of liberal ideology. If you want to get elected and re-elected, it's a political imperative there. But when Reagan became POTUS, he proved to be very conservative.
I think he's been weak on defending and responding when challenged on flip-flopping.
Consider that if Barack Obama actually takes any action to lower the price of gasoline, he will have flip-flopped himself. His entire theory was that developing alternative fuel sources while stonewalling oil companies on new oil production would lower the price. Obviously that hasn't worked and he bet on the wrong alternative fuels IMHO. So we're about to watch Obama flip-flop (he really has no choice if he wants to sidestep any blame for high prices at the pump).
If being consistent actually mattered then everyone would be voting for Ron Paul. Obviously, being consistent is not a big priority in a POTUS.
Obama and Santorum have not made 180 degree ideological shifts. Romney makes John Kerry seem like a straight shooter.
There's a distinct difference between a primary battle and the general election.
Yeah, there is. One side is co-ordinated, unified, organized, energized, and ready to go with a candidate who has a consistently high likeability rating and has turned around in the ratings.
The other side is divided, unorganized, has no national plan, and is discontented with their guy, who gets all mush-mouthed and vapid under pressure.
I remember a time when the Republicans had a big and effective machine and pulled reliable support everywhere. Those times are long gone, but the taught the Democrats how to do it before the times faded away.
Obama and Santorum have not made 180 degree ideological shifts. Romney makes John Kerry seem like a straight shooter.
Obama criticizes Bush on the debt and gas prices, and then makes both of them worse. Obama promises to deliver "Hope and Change" and handed us "From Bad to Worse."
It's results that matter and Obama does not have any credibility at getting good things done. He's a master at wasting money on failed causes and that's about it. He was going to shut down Gitmo and was actually pretty nasty in his criticism of it's very existence. He has failed to deliver there too. He has now entered his campaign for re-election mode, so he's rushing to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Why didn't he do it in the first two years instead?? And what kind of a Democrat shelters the wealthiest Americans? He could have raised taxes on millionaires like he's blathering on about now in the first two years. So why didn't he?? Obama has become an ideological opposite to the man running for presidency in 2008. Hell yes he's massively changed ideologically!! He is quite literally sprinting to try to make it look like he's been an even slightly competent president.
I wanted Ron Paul but it looks like that's not gonna happen. Since I can't have my first pick, at the very least I can vote to get rid of the most disastrous presidency in living memory. Romney is actually the most overqualified candidate for President I can ever remember running for it. It wouldn't take much to improve upon Obama, but actually I think Romney will be a very good status-quo president. He won't do as much as I think needs to get done. Not even close. But he'll at least slow down the Obama-led charge for the cliff's edge. We might even get a desperately needed BBA under Romney. No way in hell Obama would ever let that happen on his watch. He's too addicted to wasting money we don't have to even think about cutting up the credit cards.
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.
