Posted on 04/06/2012 1:30:41 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[SNIP]
...For candidates such as Santorum and Gingrich, a loss would be highly public. When you’re the exciting new candidate, you’re likely to focus on the endless possibilities, and optimism rules the day. But when the polls turn against you, the fear of failure starts to weigh more heavily. Despite whatever they go on to do, the stigma of losing can be nearly impossible to shake. For example, a Los Angeles Times headline last summer read “Failed presidential candidate Al Gore attacks winning candidate Obama over his environment policies.” The story had nothing to do with campaigning, yet Gore was still branded as a loser.
[SNIP]
....How could they misread reality when there’s so much information (i.e. nonstop polling) about how they’re doing? Well, having so much information makes it easy to evaluate a situation in a way that reflects well on ourselves and is consistent with our beliefs. Losing a primary might be interpreted in a candidate’s mind as a better-than-expected result (still a defeat, but not as bad as the naysayers predicted!) or even as irrelevant (especially in the states where delegates are allocated proportionally to the share of the vote).
Fortunately, some of these pathologies are avoidable. If candidates set objective benchmarks for themselves before campaigning, it would be harder for them to spin results in their favor.
But candidates are still human — no matter how smart and capable they might be. When Bob Dole said last month that it was “getting close to the point” where Santorum should decide whether to drop out, he acknowledged his own difficulty in giving up his pursuit for the 1988 GOP nomination. “As much as you don’t want to do it, sometimes you have to face reality.”
And the reality is, we already have a Republican nominee: Mitt Romney.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“Some people think the race is about them rather than the country. That would be Paul, Santorum, Gingrich and the people who want them to stay in......They are all helping Obama at this point. But that doesn’t bother them.”
You are ENTIRELY OUT OF LINE sir! There are a great many of us that think Romney would be just as bad a Obama. Because you can’t see that doesn’t give you the warrant to say those of us who do ARE NOT THINKING OF THEIR COUNTRY. Saying, that in your opinion, they should throw in the towel is OK. However, when you impugn the motives of MANY of us that don’t agree....you have stepped over a line you should not.
You owe us ALL an apology to say we are “not thinking of our country.” Maybe we “think” better and wiser than you sir!
So you would rather keep the narcissistic socialist/ Marxist fool you know rather than elect someone who you think is just as bad as he is?
where is your spirit of adventure?
Im not gonna let your thinking get in the way of anyone else who wants that job and can get it,
ABO
“So you would rather keep the narcissistic socialist/ Marxist fool.....”
No of course I don’t want him. However, I don’t see that a nacissistic socialist, homosexual enabling, liberal, and mormon cultist fool is any improvement. Also, he might forever ruin any chance of getting a true conservative elected.
Obama is recognizable evil, Romney is disguised evil. Both are evil. I don’t want either.
The only hope is an open convention to get a better candidate. Thus, I’m all for Newt and Rick going the distance.
“Im not gonna let your thinking get in the way of anyone else who wants that job and can get it”
Do what you think best. Just don’t impugn the character of us that don’t agree. If you feel you must question my intelligence or wisdom....so be it. I’m certainly doing the same for the “ABO” mentality that will let the likes of Romney represent the GOP without a full fight.
Huh. Why dont they ever pick on RON PAUL?
FWIW, there’s a simple metric to decide to stay in or not - can you possibly win?
Ron Paul and Newt cannot mathematically win at this point. That’s why newt blathers about a brokered convention and Ron Paul supporters gear up for a convention ‘strategy’; There is zero chance they can win.
Santorum mathematically can win (but reality is closing in ...), but since Jan, he’s not had a 1on1 shot vs Romney.
So why are Newt and Ron Paul making it harder on Rick Santorum? That’s the real question.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&year=2008&fips=48
Romney always does best in high population density areas (sort of like the Democrats do).
Please cease posting pictorial satires such as that, as it caused me a coffee/keyboard incident this morning when I saw it.
Yes, that sort of supports the idea that Higher income earners who gravitate to cities, are more likely to support Romney.
Higher educated voters also favor Romney. Poll Demographics heavily support this data.
Why doesn’t Ron Paul just quit?
Ron Paul is the head of a Libertarian/Populist cult following. It is a religion and he is their Pope.
If Newt drops out, Paul will likely get most of Newt's remaining voters with an even split going to Romney and Santorum. Most of Newt's voters who have already left, mostly in favor of Romney, were those who were voting for who they thought had the best chance of beating Obama.
The remaining die hards for Newt are Anybody but Romney hold outs, who refuse to support Santorum. They will favor Paul, who is almost a guarantee to stay in until the Convention.
Since Mitt is the “obvious chosen candidate and cannot lose” (/s) what difference does it make if they stay in?
I like that arguement. And it keeps the repubs in the spotlight and odumbi out of it. It keeps dem on the defensive. AND if we get a crazy convention that will mean more viewership and more chances to get our message across. I hope they stay in.
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.