Posted on 12/21/2009 2:10:35 PM PST by euram
Explaining to do to who?
You?
She don't owe you ZILCH!
Read her book, like over a million people already have and read why she had to resign. As a result, her poll numbers shot up.
Romney didn't drop out of the race until McCain had 573 electors, just about 200 short of what he needed to clinch the nomination. I think Romney had less than 150, perhaps even less than a 100. Romney dropped out because he was - for all practical consideration - eliminated from contention.
I'm assuming the MS primary came after Super Tuesday and Romney's exit from the race. If it did, and you still would have had the opportunity to vote for him, it wouldn't have changed the mathematical inevitability of McCain's win.
Voters DO select the nominees, primarily because of changes that have been made to the nominating process the last 45 years. I can't remember the last time we had a nominee who didn't win the most delegates.
Great idea. I would agree with a Sara and Rubio ticket. We keep trying to place moderates and people with “broad appeal”. We are seeing that a real conservative gets more broad appeal that trying to cater to the mythical masses.
Way to bait and switch.
Nice one.
This is what you said, and I quote:
“Or, would you prefer to have someone who speaks much more eloquently and persuasively than the average American, especially considering how critical effective communication skills are in that job?”
You were in effect saying that we need someone who is a great orator to be president, so I asked you how the guy who is the “greatest orator ever” working out as president?
0bama is the biggest disaster ever to have hit this country.
So much for yours theory about this country needing a “great orator” to govern us. It's all empty talk, and no substance.
“Even after the wave of Republican resurgence in ‘94 and approval rating in the 30s, Clinton was EASILY reelected precisely because he was persuasive and eloquent”
You left out one little detail.
As Dick Morris(who was Clinton's top aide), pointed out, Clinton was elected with 42% of the vote, yet after one year in office, Clinton was polling at 56% approval rating, that is a net gain of +14%.
(Video here)
http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/12/dick-morris-says-republican-tsunami-is.html
0bama on the other hand, was elected with 53% of the vote, yet today he is poling at only 46% in the latest Rasmussen polls, that is a net loss of -7%.
0bozo is doing FAR WORSE than Clinton was, 11% worse as a matter of fact. That kind of approval gap spells disaster for the Kenyan.
You want Adlai Stevenson.
And my surgeon, lawyer and account are all average Americans and talk like me.
Elitism at its worst, right here on this very thread.
You can count on a couple of more from NH.
Since ANY Republican canidate will be that polarizing to them (Jeez, they had a problem with McCain, for crying out loud) might as well put up a good one. GO Sarah!
I take it you never even bothered to read her speech or even her book. And your sign-up date is very interesting.
If she wants my vote, then she owes me. The left blindly lined up behind a hyped-up candidate who had written a few books and had done not much else. I’m not saying that she isn’t the one, but we, the thinkers, shouldn’t get caught up in an emotional wave of appeal over substance.
The writer is a moron. There were plenty of Obama fans in Fairfax....it's a Dem county and went for him big in 2008.
Well, if Rasmussen is liberal, then yes. Rasmussen has had Huckabee with the strongest results, though, that pre-dated the recent Washington and Clemency Issues. I also don’t consider FOX News polls liberal (though they are in the tank for Huckabee).
Well, not to put words in your mouth, but I believe you mean you could NOT care less how a President speaks.
Be that as it may, I would respond by saying, "Good for you". But, as a political reality, the rest of the country - the people who actually elect Presidents - do seem to care about a Presidents ability to effectively communicate.
"He speaks well but he lies everytime he opens his mouth. Much rather someone who speaks the truth and walks the walk. I think most Americans would agree."
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying - for lying. And yet, he enjoyed an approval rating in excess of 60% when he left office. Most polling I've seen says that he would have easily won a third term, if he'd been allowed to run.
Bill Clinton was the poster-child for slick mendacious politicians. And yet, he's still incredibly popular. Voters like politicians who speak well. They tend to not like voter's who don't speak well. It's just a political reality.
Clinton was barely reelected—because Dole was a poor candidate and also that nut from Texas (forgot his name) was able to garner a large third-party vote. Clinton and his wife were and are unusually good liars and they had a fawning press. Do you want another liar like Clinton—maybe you do.
Every presidential candidate faces a though fight to the White House. Its the path to being the most powerful person on the planet.
“ The fact of the matter is while she's incredibly popular with the base, especially social conservatives, she does have a “Dan Quayle” problem with the general electorate.”
It's incredibly STUPID to even attempt to compare Sarah Palin to Dan Quayle. That particular piece of nonsense has been taken apart over and over and over gain on this site, and proven REPEATEDLY to be false, and without merit, yet like some demented fanatic, you keep dragging it up again anyways. The last thing you are interested in, is to face the reality of the FACTS and what the polls are telling you.
Then, of course, there was Clinton's charismatic opponent, John McCain's cousin Bob Dole. LOL.
Adlai Stevenson...groan. Unfortunately, I actually remember him. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.