in every state thus far, 3 out of 4 Republicans agree, anybody but Romney. If he is able to slide into the nomination despite the fact that 75% of the Republican electorate is against him than we have a serious problem with our primary process. Mutt wants to convince us that he is inevitable but the only thing I am convinced of is that the majority of Republicans would prefer someone other rhan him.
Mutt wants to convince us that he is inevitable
**************
True. But what concerns me more is that people we trusted (Rush, Coulter, Hannity-etc) are trying to convince us he’s inevitable.
What a revelation. We conservatives are on our own. Hopefully, we can make a stand- or I’m afraid,we won’t get another opportunity.
I think we have a serious problem with the voting process in general. We can't vote for who we actually want, we have to vote for who can win. That problem is the reason Slick Willy managed to win despite over half the electorate voting for a conservative in both 92 and 96.
I wonder if the primaries would be a good place to experiment with a "preferential voting"-type system.
To be accurate, it has not been 3-4 republicans not voting for Romney in every state so far. He won around 39% in NH. Keep your facts straight.
This 75% of republicans don’t want Mitt is a poor logic when you have a large and good slate of primary candidates. So you could say in NH, that 90% of republicans don’t want Mitt, or Santorum. 75% didn’t want Santorum in Iowa, etc. Poor and flawed logic. This is always the case early in the primaries; the vote is spread around. Looks like Mitt is consolidating and getting a better share in each upcoming state.
SC will be close. Unless Newt can win there and big, I am afraid this is effectively over.
Mutt wants to convince us that he is inevitable but the only thing I am convinced of is that the majority of Republicans would prefer someone other rhan him.
Prefer someone other than him, certainly, but the problem is with the kinds of reasoning plenty of people give. In the following examples I can think of plenty of the candidates make me wonder why they bat around the Bush.
1) Bain capital is the problem.
My take: The problem is actually Romney, because he makes his experience with venture capitalism seem fresh when he’s officially been retired from being the CEO of Bain Capital since the end of fiscal year 1999. In other words, over 20 years, how fresh can experience from over twenty years ago be? Practically all experience of his since then has been about running for president, including being governor of MA.
Not all of it is Romney’s substance either, Gingrich failed to effectively plan to collect signatures on the campaign trail, which hurt him, and made him look not so presidential. Same with Rick Perry. If anything, he’s my definition of a politician for life.
With Rick Santorum, he should keep running to raise awareness about Rick Santorum, not every person who doesn’t make it on the original primary should quit so soon. Newt, has plenty of problems, I wouldn’t vote for him unless I had no other choice. Rick on the other hand, has a better moral record, and actually is better in his overall attitude, politically speaking, given how the mentality of politicians compares to the general populace.
What makes me wonder is how Ron Paul ever got anywhere in the primaries. I cannot agree with him on foreign policy. If America is really going to keep attacks off it’s back, it is going to carry a really big stick.
I agree, there are plenty of candidates I would like more, but the part that irks me so much is why we have the set running that we do.