"The [my] only connection [to the Republican Party]is I'm registered as a Republican"--Mitt RRRRRomney
Posted on 08/06/2012 4:27:26 PM PDT by neverdem
Favor is fickle, and hope and change was easier to promise than deliver on.
A new Gallup poll shows that nearly 10 percent of voters who supported Barack Obama during his 2008 run have decamped and will be supporting Republican challenger Mitt Romney in this next election. At nine percent, the rate of Obama ’08 defectors is nearly double the five percent of former McCain ’08 supporters who now say they’ll cast a vote for Obama.
Partly loyalty is higher in the Republican camp too, with 92 percent of former McCain supporters saying they’re sticking with the red ticket, while only 86 percent of Obama’s 2008 base say they’re staying true.
The poll surveyed more than 2,000 registered voters who punched a ballot in 2008.
Now for some number play: if we make the broad assumption that the poll data is representative of the general population and do some extrapolation, tallying nine percent of 69,456,897 (Obama’s 2008 vote count) and subtracting five percent of John McCain’s 59,934,814 votes, we end up with a potential 3.25 million more votes for Romney than McCain had four years ago. It’s nothing concrete, but it’s becoming clear that election 2012 will be a far different race than 2008 was.
Agreed.
They will lie right down, like they are doing now.
If Romney wants a second term he will have to deal with the conservative base.
So you want Obama to have another four years to wreck the country?
I’m not that sure that Romney was that liberal or just a pol blowing in MA’s wind. IIRC, Mark Kirk moved to the right after he was elected to the Senate from Illinois. He was one of the biggest RINOs in the House from a northern Chicago suburb. Gillibrand from upstate NY went from moderate rat sleeping with rifles under her bed to one of the most hard left members of the Senate.
Romney was my last pick for the nominee. If he governs from the left, he can be primaried. The Tea Party spirit isn’t going away.
[ It will take the most courage I’ve ever needed to muster in an election — voting for Romney ]
Mee Too... so alright I guess your human... I won’t hang you in my dream.. so there..
I’m really really hard to piss off.. but Zero done it..
I’m worried about Romney and Roberts... and Bush Jr. is on my last nerve..
The republican party seems to be FUBAR.. I will not bend over and “assume the position”....
You know...... anymore.. its over..
It’s been foolish to dismiss the potential of the Romney democrats. Of all available Republican candidates, who among them might they most prefer that comrade obama lose to?
Gallup only has half the story here. Besides the 9% of Obama voters who will vote for Romney we have the turn out factor which according to this same Gallup has a double digit advantage for Republicans as far as entusiasm to get out and vote in November.
On top of the 9% which are abandoning Obama for Romney there is the issue of how many Dems who voted last time will simply stay home this time and that’s what the enthusiasm numbers are telling us will happen.
This is simply a bogus argument that reassumed 08 as a “baseline” making the same mistake pollsters did in 1994. And, no, the “swapsies” do NOT give Zero a win because it’s x2 (Zero loses+Romney gains) and the original point of my post was that based on MY experience of speaking in front of “conservatives’ conservatives,” I.e. Tea Parties, there will be an awesome turnout by conservatives on Nov.6-—perhaps everywhere except on FR.
You have it pegged rightly. Damn CINO Texas Tea Partiers running afoul of online expert-purists. Long abt a month ago I reached the same emboldening conclusion. I know my local TP chapter-- and it's the same story in the numerous other populous enclaves in the Metroplex-- will ecstatically vote for Romney, because we all understand the stakes, and we'll then begin our restoration. Making no prediction on the Senate outcome, it's touch and go, but I am hopeful.
"The [my] only connection [to the Republican Party]is I'm registered as a Republican"--Mitt RRRRRomney
Again, using 2008 as a baseline, or 2004 as a baseline, Obama still gets more votes ~ within the framework of statistical change suggested in the lead article.
Dreaming about Romney having a landslide is just dreaming.
That's why we need a DIFFERENT CANDIDATE. You are stuck with Romney ~ and that's like having another Obama.
I’ll vote against Obama. But I’ll be advocating impeachment of the Bishop the first time he farts out of his left face.
I think you are trying to add in people who are voting for the first time ~ who are TEAPArtiers ~ sure, right ~ i"ve got some share in a working gold mine I"d like to sell you.
I’m going to vote for Romney, of course, but i’m not leaving it all up to Romney to FIX.
WE the People need to fix this mess, from the bottom up. Join your local political group, your local school board, your local whatever.
Get involved. Stop stuffing your faces at the game, stop wandering aimlessly at the mall. Start learning the names of the people in charge!
Get back in control, conservatives, from the ground up. It’s the only wway we’re ever going to right this ship in the long term.
Yep
Charlie Tea Mike
The other 91% are still dead, in prison, or receiving payola.
I know for a fact many more are stupid
Never said otherwise. Indeed, we are assured of one of those two outcomes. What third party votes can manipulate is the degree of mandate the winner receives.
Yes, they do say. You just haven't bothered to see it.
Me, I don't want either Obama or Romney to win, as they are both extreme statists guaranteed to increase government tyranny. My third party vote will be entirely neutral -- I'll be leaving whether it's Obama or Romney up to those willing to endorse one brand of statism over the other. Instead, my third party vote is a vote FOR a plurality. If I "win," the next president will enter office opposed by more than half of the electorate, a situation which, if it follows historical precedent, will advance the cause of conservatism.
Some Greens were doing it on purpose. They figured their environmental movement would grow stronger opposing a Texas oilman than it would with a phony perceied ally in the White House.
Which proves that either you have not bothered to read and consider many of our posts, OR that you are intellectually dishonest. There are many ideas here, solid, reasoned ideas, as to alternatives to rolling over and surrendering the GOP to an extreme statist liberal like Romney.
Find a post of mine where I've complained about the GOP not nominating the right guy. On the other hand, if you went back in my posting history, you'd see where I frequently posted that a) Romney would probably get the nomination in 2012 and that those who declared "he's toast" in '10 and '11 were being naive; b) as early as 2008 (I was inclined to favor him int 2007, until I did my due diligence and researched his record), that he was the single most dangerous threat to the GOP and to conservatism and should be (have been) nipped in the bud as a top priority. And I wasn't alone in that sentiment.
But it's pretty obvious that you skim, you don't read; and that you are a lot more "broadcast" than "receive."
In that case, ABOers are really delusional if they think that same Congress is going to "hold Romney's feet to the fire," particularly if Romney gets a landslide win and thus a "popular mandate."
You are even more delusional if you turn away from the fact that Romney, moderates, and the MSM would certainly pervert that landslide, a referendum on Obama, into a "the public loves Romney!" popular mandate for Romney's progressive statist brand of "Republican."
I repeat: the ONLY smart way to vote is to vote for a plurality in order to weaken the mandate of whichever liberal statist wins. And the only way to vote for a plurality is to vote third-party.
You're not persuasive and you're not even paying attention. Obama is circumventing Congress and the longer he stays in office the longer our economic disaster continues. Plus, if he survives this election, there will be nothing to stop him from an all-out assault on the Constitution and the free market economy.
Would Romney, in his wildest dreams, do that to America? I don't believe it.
If anyone is weak, it's Romney. He's not a forceful leader. A Republican Congress will have more sway with him because he doesn't think about ways to get around Congress. He's a go-along-get-along milquetoast moderate. He was a liberal Zelig in Democrat-controlled Massachussetts and he's campaigning now as somebody far more conservative than that.
We don't really know the real Romney but whoever he is cannot possibly do more damage to America than a second term of Obama where he is beholden to nobody and has no need to reign himself in just to get re-elected.
NO SANE AMERICAN WANTS TO GO ANYWHERE NEAR A SECOND OBAMA TERM and that's why the sane conservatives are going to bite their tongues, hold their noses and vote for Romney despite all they mistrust about him.
That you refuse tells me all I need to know about you.
Tell that to Bill Clinton. You are a fatalist, no more a "realist" than an optimist who sees the world through rose-colored glasses. The only difference is that your glasses are dung-tinted.
Bill Clinton was elected the first time on a plurality of 43%, and two years later, was hammered with the Republican Revolution. He and the MSM could have claimed his win as a "mandate" (though they never did, as they wouldn't if Obama won on a 43% plurality) but he no more had a mandate than Chaz Bono has balls. Illusions are still illusions no matter who declares otherwise. Clinton was elected the second time on a plurality of 49% -- and was impeached two years later.
Had HW Bush won re-election, or had Clinton won a majority either time, the Republican Revolution and Clinton's impeachment would probably never have happened. Those two pluralities clearly favored conservatives.
And Clinton was liked and popular overall, even though most Americans voted for somebody else both times. Obama, on the other hand, if you take off your crap-tinted lenses and look at things as a realist, is becoming more and more loathed by the very people who once supported him. Obama is held in contempt by quite possibly a very large majority of Americans; he lacks any of Clinton's charm.
There is good, solid reason to vote for a plurality in 2012. Because if Romney wins in a landslide, he will marginalize conservative Republicans and have the numbers to prove his claim of a "popular mandate" to justify his telling conservatives to sit down and shut up. Romney is a documented, demonstrated extreme liberal statist. Wishing he will change once in office, especially if he won on a landslide, is height of delusion.
So what on earth makes you think they would stand up to Romney, especially if Romney wins on a popular mandate "landslide"?
If Romney wants a second term he will have to deal with the conservative base.
You mean the same conservative base that so soundly rejected him this time?
You are wholly delusional.
Word. And the media will tell the sheeple they have that mandate and the RINOs will tell the sheeple that the president deserves his chance to implement the policies the public elected him to do. It will be 2009 all over again.
... chuckle chuckle ... "Well, the only connection is I'm registered as a Republican," yuk yuk yuk, haw haw haw ...
... every desperate short-sighted ABOer, seeing how many Democrats are so easily moving away from Obama toward Romney, risks giving this extreme statist liberal assclown, a landslide.
If, God forbid, Romney wins in a landslide, the buyers' remorse among Republicans will be immediate, excruciatingly painful, and crippling.
Pray for a plurality, folks. Vote for one, too.
I sure hope you're right, Mu. But personally, I think there is genuine danger that he might get one.
Obama is not the enemy. Liberalism is the enemy, cowards in Congress are the enemy.
You're aiming at the wrong target, and are advocating surrendering the Republican party to statist liberalism, and refuse to consider any other options because you are paralyzed by your fear of Obama.
It's pure, simple truth. I don't like it any more than you do, but truth is truth.
It takes some serious finagling to get around the problem ~ from both sides.
Romney is saying things to pull in Democrat voters (who suck up to gays) in Leftwingtard states ~ but the Democrat edge there is OVERWHELMING. Obama could be near death in a hospital and they'd still vote for him because he's a Democrat. They aren't picky. But picking up moderate gay voters in New York does not help us.
On the other hand, telling folks in South Dakota about your interest in gays in the Boy Scouts could lose us our electoral vote advantage. BTW, that's what really killed us in the Ross Perot contests ~ he took away our votes in states we needed to win ~ and got no votes at all in Democrat core constituencies. That gave it all to Clinton.
You did mean Muslim terrorist playing Marxist, didn't you?
[ I know for a fact many more(blacks) are stupid ]
Some are indeed stupid but more are just ignorant..
After all civics is not taught in public school anymore..
Brilliant tactic by the teachers unions..
They don’t even know they have a Constitution let alone whats IN THE Constitution.. or the value of it..
Subtle but brilliant tactic of sedition by the Teachers Unions..
DUMB them down and they will vote for their OWN SLAVERY..
Try to tell a Black or Jew that the democrat party flat out despises them..
At least a few Hispanics KNOW what communism(socialism) is.. they lived it..
Not all but many do know..
I think we all know your true agenda...anti mormonism first, conservatism second.
I sure hope you’re right, Mu.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
maybe you two can explain yourselves here. Looks to me like the two of you would be sad if Romney won, in a landslide or not. If so I am ashamed to associate with the likes of you two.
On the other hand, it is highly doubtful this poofer can beat the other poofer.
One of you Mitbots ought to go take care of this problem, OK.
American conservatism rejects state establishments of religion.
Do you?
Does Bishop Myth?
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.