Posted on 04/09/2012 8:06:05 AM PDT by mitchell001
Im not trying to teach anyone a lesson. My vote cannot be taken for granted. We have been warning the GOP no more RINOs and they give us Romney. If you are comfortable being told what to do by people who don’t respect your beliefs, morals, and convictions, that’s fine. Just don’t expect me to go along with you.
It is not my fault the GOP is adverse to conservatism these days..
“Sadly, we conservatives have two enemies to defeat; the RATS and the GOP.”
You just hit the nail right on the head.
Right turn, Clyde!
“Yeah but they say they love us and beg us to come back
And then they send their surrogates here on FreeRepublic to try to frighten us lest we leave them.”
Yes indeed. Simple minded little wardheelers that they are.
Conservative: “I can’t stand Baal. He is a demon, and I have higher standards than that. Further, it is my duty to resist hell itself, and to defeat it where I can. We all have that duty.”
Party Peon: “A vote against Baal is a vote for Abaddon!!!”
Stunned Conservative. “Uh . . . No. I do not vote for demons. I am not voting for either of them.”
Party Peon: “YES YOU ARE! A VOTE AGAINST BAAL IS A VOTE FOR ABADDON! VOTE FOR BAAL BECAUSE HE IS BETTER THAN ABADDON! IF YOU DO NOT VOTE FOR BAAL IT IS BECAUSE YOU REALLY LIKE ABADDON AND WANT TO SEE HIM IN CHARGE!”
Stunned Conservative: “Dude, they are BOTH DEMONS! Either of them will make this place hell on earth! I don’t want either one in charge. I -HATE- demons and will not choose either one!”
Party Peon: “YES YOU HAVE YOU TRAITOR! YOU’RE VOTING FOR ABADDON IF YOU WON’T VOTE FOR BAAL! I WOULD VOTE FOR LUCIFER HIMSELF TO DEFEAT ABADDON, AS NOTHING EVER EVER EVER EVER COULD POSSIBLY BE WORSE THAN ABADDON!”
Stunned Conservative: “Dolt. Abaddon, Baal and Lucifer are all on the same team. They are each diabolical and I will not aid, assist or support any of them. They are DEMONS.”
Party Peon: “You are a bigot.”
You said...
“And then you’re going to blame the GOP for your little temper tantrum.”
The GOP deserves blame for nominating a leftist and then telling us we must vote for their leftist because he is just a little bit better than the other party’s leftist.
No thanks
Very good, but I’d like to add one to yours...
“Go on over to the DU with the other B. Hussein Obama supporters and Marxist Muslims.”
Their “arguments” “rise” to the level of sewer politics and attempted character assassination.
If Obummer wins a second term there won’t be a Free Republic site in existence.
But did Perot defeat Bush? First, look at the turnout. Perot got 19,660,450 votes. The total turnout was more than 13 million higher than in 1988. So, even though Perot got a lot of votes, 13 million of those voters didn’t vote in 1988. Clinton ran 3.1 million votes ahead of Dukakis, but Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than four years earlier. The two party vote fell by 7 million. So, Perot only took 7 million votes from the two parties combined. If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton’s 3.1 million vote lead. Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome clinton’s lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush’s 46.5%?
The 1992 presidential election was an analyst’s dream. Usually, the presidential candidate runs far ahead of the rest of the ticket. Perot’s presence in the presidential race combined with an absence of running mates for lesser offices meant that Clinton and Bush ran behind their respective party’s nominees for Governor, Senator and the House. Consequently, it was easy to follow Perot’s voters as they voted for other offices. They voted for Democratic and Republican Governor, Senator and House of Representative candidates in sufficient numbers to give them higher vote totals than Clinton and Bush.
This assumes that all Clinton’s supporters voted for the other Democratic candidates and all Bush’s supporters voted for the Republican candidates for Governor, Senator and the House. Since Republican candidates for other offices received more votes than Bush, and Democratic candidates for other offices received more votes than Clinton, this is a statistically valid assumption. The higher vote totals for the non-presidential candidates had to come from Perot’s voters.
In the Governor’s races, Perot’s voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot’s voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton’s lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.
In the Senate races, Perot’s supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.)
In the House races, Perot’s voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.
Perot’s voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot’s voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot’s voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.
If Perot cost Bush the election, the proof must lie somewhere else. On a statistical basis, it’s essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.
This analysis can be further confirmed by comparing the 1992 and 1996 results where Perot’s vote dropped by 10 million compared to 1992. By comparing the vote totals for Clinton in both years with Bush’s and Dole’s (assuming Dole voters and Bush voters were the same voters) it is possible to conclude that in 1992 Perot’s presence on the ballot cost Bush: Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia. However, Perot cost Clinton: Florida and Arizona in 1992. So, in 1992, Perot cost Clinton 32 electoral votes while costing Bush 37 electoral votes. Bush lost by 100 electoral votes, so 5 more would not have given him victory.
This same analysis shows that if Perot had not been on the ballot in 1996, Dole would have carried Nevada instead of Clinton. So, by any measure, even admitting that Perot’s presence may have cost Bush a few electoral votes in 1992, it was no where near enough to change the outcome of that election, nor the Clinton - Dole contest in 1996.
Yes! Why, if we don't vote for Romney, we're headed for a disaster of Biblical proportions! Old Testament - real wrath of God type stuff! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
“The Perotistas gave us Clinton...”
A lying, tax hiking, New England voodoo Republican gave us Clinton.
BTW, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was a more conservative governor than Willard Mitt Romney. Sad but true.
Romney is going to need an attack dog and someone who understands the inner workings of DC. Plus if he actually wanted to do stuff—Newt would provide him with a portfolio of options.
So yes Newt is the right choice for Veep.
**Would a Romney-Gingrich ticket be acceptable to Jim Robinson & other conservative Freepers?**
No way. I will not vote for flip-flopper Romney and get Romneycare/Obamacare stuffed down my throat.
Only because Bush wanted Cheney to have influence - which could have happened with or without the VP position.
Like so many here have already said, Mitt is a problem. However, your position seems to be that there no hope. Given his ability to switch sides so quickly, maybe he’ll lie to our advantage this time. But that’s a slim chance. We know for sure, what Odumbo stands for.
We still have a new crop of congress-critters that can be elected and hopefully provide added support for the recently-elected conservatives. If we can take Congress, we really don’t care what purported damage Mitt can do anyway. I still put hope in our Congress people to eventually toss Boner and his ilk, and then take a harder stance against the rats.
Y'all have sunk lower than Franklin D. Roosevelt.
He said:
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Romney Republicans have shortened that to:
"We have nothing but fear itself."
That one definitely made me laugh out loud.
How about a massive “write-in campaign?”
No Romney... with anybody.
**No ticket with Romney anywhere on it should be acceptable to any true conservative. Romney is a Liberal, Socialist, pro-socialized medicine, pro-abortion, anti-relgious freedom, pro-illegal, pro-homosexual agenda, Big Government, gun grabbing, liar.**
Way to go. I think you have it covered!
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.