I'm no political expert, but here's my $.02:

 

The Republicans aren't anywhere near settled on a candidate at this early stage. Evidently all you have to do to get near Governor Romney is spend a little time in a state. He will be the eventual nominee, but it will take a little while. Everyone in the field turns off a significant chunk of the electorate.

 

Newt sounded very much like a vice-presidential aspirant during his post-results speech last night.

 

Last night's turnout shuld be disquieting to the Rs. Four years ago, with folks disenfranchised with President Bush, 120,000 turned out. Last night, with the right presumably in a "let's get that socialist out of office" mode, 120,000 turned out.

What is the knock on Santorum? I know he's had some strong opinions against gays but what else?

 

The fact that he got steamrolled last time probably doesn't help.

What is the knock on Santorum? I know he's had some strong opinions against gays but what else?

 

He is a big spender. Earmarks. Enough for me not to like him.

He's not going to win all of those, but he doesn't have to. I agree the electoral vote will be much closer, but I expect the popular to be around 3-5%.

 

If Romney can win the states that I have listed, plus hold on to the one's that McCain won in '08, he'll have a 282-253 electoral advantage, and the white House. Of course, that "if" is in there, but I think it can be done.

I've said all along that Romney is the inevitable candidate. The conservatives have been flirting with numerous candidates--the non-Romneys--but none have been able to stick. Mitt has stayed consistently at 20-25% this whole time.

 

I've also said all along that Obama will win re-election. I think the country wants someone else in office, as evidenced by the "Generic Republican" beating Obama in polls. They're (we're) just very dissatisfied with this current crop of candidates. Obama will beat Romney by 3-5 percentage points.

 

Chris Christie would have crushed these people. Perhaps even Obama.

 

Pretty much spot on in my estimation. I also have to think that this field wouldn't be as weak as it is if Obama were nearly as vulnerable as the commentators think he is.

Others said the same thing about Romney in Iowa. Santorum and Romney are going away with the same delegate count because of the virtual tie and new proportional rules, correct?

He only got roughly a quarter of them. He'll need much more than a quarter to beat Obama.

 

A lot Paul's followers are likely to vote 3rd party (Libertarian) come the general or sit at home. Santorum's are the super-right wing people I'm talking about here who I feel will sit at home or maybe even consider a 3rd party themselves. While they won't vote Obama I don't think a lot of them will hold their nose and pull the lever for Romney either.

Pretty much spot on in my estimation. I also have to think that this field wouldn't be as weak as it is if Obama were nearly as vulnerable as the commentators think he is.

I've said this all along. Couldn't agree more.

He only got roughly a quarter of them. He'll need much more than a quarter to beat Obama.

 

A lot Paul's followers are likely to vote 3rd party (Libertarian) come the general or sit at home. Santorum's are the super-right wing people I'm talking about here who I feel will sit at home or maybe even consider a 3rd party themselves. While they won't vote Obama I don't think a lot of them will hold their nose and pull the lever for Romney either.

Or maybe, just maybe they have more of a clue then you give them credit for and they realize that doing that gives us 4 more years of Obama's policies. With Obama being a lame duck and not having to worry about paying lip service to governing from the middle a second term really gives him a chance to do irreparable damage to this country.

He only got roughly a quarter of them. He'll need much more than a quarter to beat Obama.

 

A lot Paul's followers are likely to vote 3rd party (Libertarian) come the general or sit at home. Santorum's are the super-right wing people I'm talking about here who I feel will sit at home or maybe even consider a 3rd party themselves. While they won't vote Obama I don't think a lot of them will hold their nose and pull the lever for Romney either.

 

No one who voted in this caucus is voting for Obama. Your better point is the question as to whether those who voted will show up next fall and vote for Romney.

Or maybe, just maybe they have more of a clue then you give them credit for and they realize that doing that gives us 4 more years of Obama's policies. With Obama being a lame duck and not having to worry about paying lip service to governing from the middle a second term really gives him a chance to do irreparable damage to this country.

We are both talking about the evangelical wing of the GOP, right?

No one who voted in this caucus is voting for Obama. Your better point is the question as to whether those who voted will show up next fall and vote for Romney.

I specifically said that I don't see them doing that...

LN,

 

This sounds great in theory and may be true in how people really feel. But I get the impresssion that the two-party system has greatly divided this country into an "us vs. them" method of thinking with a few (I)'s and 3rd party voters out there. Because of this, you will not see a shift towards the middle. The party in power gets complacent until the other party comes to power, then you have to rally the troops somehow. What's the easiest way to rally the troops? With "hot-button issues" that get the "one issue" voters out in droves such as abortion or universal healthcare. It's because of this that nothing gets accomplished and we keep rehashing the same candidate, just with a different name -- regardless of party. What people say they want and what they do are more often than not greatly different.

 

Even in your post -- a very well thought out one -- you, yourself espouse your belief on what party you want the candidate to be from. More or less, telling people to be pragmatic when they vote, but mainly to get your party in office. So while you make many, many excellent points you continue to feed the beast...

 

As to the bolded, you are exactly correct. I guess I should have made it clearer that I was addressing my thoughts to conservative Republicans that might not be inclined to vote for Romney because he is not conservative enough for them and because they want a very conservative President who will make fast and dramatic changes to move the country much farther to the right.

^ Well said LN. I am with you on everything you said above. If anyone questions your comments about having a mandate, Obama is a pretty good example. He believed he had a mandate to reform health care. He got it done but it was, and still is, an albatross on his first term.

 

I see some irony in your comments about the voters' mandates and voting on principal. Isn't that the very thing that has everyone so disgusted with our Congress that their approval rating is below 20%? That hard line, rigid adherence to principal by voters transfers to their elected representatives. There is very little compromise and there is constant gamesmanship played in every action and statement. Both sides love to twist words and try to hang the other side. Our legislators feel they must stick to their "mandate", "principals", etc. no matter what and the result is what we see in Congress.

 

If I'm interpreting your comments correctly, I think you are stating there is some irony in my comments involving mandates and principles. If so, I don't see it so help me out. For example, one of my principles is that I don't believe in any govt welfare. I do not believe that I should be forced by the govt to help out my fellow man. I don't believe the village should be forced to raise someone. If I decide on my own volition to help out my fellow man, I can do so through the church or charitable organizations. But I realize my view is not shared with the majority of Americans. Thus if a Presidential candidate shared my philosophy, it would not be rational for me to vote for him because he has zero chance of getting elected. So rather than be locked to that principle in my voting decision, I believe I should vote for the candidate that can get elected while at least espousing welfare reform.

 

I thought I stated exactly the same point that you were making: voters and elected officials that become slaves to their principles and mandates lose the ability to compromise. And compromise and reason is exactly what is needed to move this country forward. We are not a country that is heavily and strongly conservative and we are not a country that is heavily and strongly liberal. Those camps pretty much balance each other out, with the large and growing middle camp moving back and forth when they see an elected official moving dramatically in one direction or the other. The folks in the middle don't support a strongly liberal agenda and they don't support a strongly conservative agenda. I think and believe that voters and elected officials need to smarten up and realize that no party; no elected official can effectively lead the country if it or they is beholded to the far left or the far right. I'm hoping that the conservative R voters that might lean more to a very conservative R candidate in the primary because that person is closer to the voters' principles understand what I'm saying and decide to vote for Romney. He will be much more appealable to the middle group I believe, thus giving the Rs a better chance of beating President Obama in the General. I'd simply rather have a moderate R in the White House than President Obama. I'm not opposed to President Obama because he's a D (the Good Lord knows that I've voted for many a D in my life). I'm opposed to him because I believe he has lost his ability to find compromise with the Rs in Congress and to effectively lead this country. Heck, if George Bush Jr could have ran for a third term, if the alternate was reasonably acceptable, I'd probably have voted for the alternative because I believe Bush had lost the support of a majority of Americans, rightly or wrongly so.

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by leatherneck

While they won't vote Obama I don't think a lot of them will hold their nose and pull the lever for Romney either.

 

Agreed.

I'm no political expert, but here's my $.02:

 

The Republicans aren't anywhere near settled on a candidate at this early stage. Evidently all you have to do to get near Governor Romney is spend a little time in a state. He will be the eventual nominee, but it will take a little while. Everyone in the field turns off a significant chunk of the electorate.

 

Newt sounded very much like a vice-presidential aspirant during his post-results speech last night.

 

Last night's turnout shuld be disquieting to the Rs. Four years ago, with folks disenfranchised with President Bush, 120,000 turned out. Last night, with the right presumably in a "let's get that socialist out of office" mode, 120,000 turned out.

 

Excellent points, especially about Newt. I was a little taken back that he presented himself in that way.

 

Only possible disagreement I have is how long it takes Mitt to secure the nomination. I too thought it would drag out for a while, but after doing so well in Iowa, I have to think Romney will put this one in the bag much quicker than I expected.