Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: ThirstyMan

Why not blame the losers not the apparent winner?
If Cain, Gingrich and Santorum couldn’t compete and win against Romney then why should we expect them to magically beat Obama?

**

You are a fool to compare the primaries to the general election.

The primary vote was SPLIT 4 freaking ways, by CONSERVATIVES who refused to unite and by the GOP, who refuses to stop running RINO candidates.

Conservatives COULD NOT, WOULD not unite, which they could have, easily, behind Newt, who had the momentum early. The refused. They were too “bothered” by his past life, which has nothing to do with his real life now. They wanted an alternative, and claimed their alternative candidate woudl somehow prove to be better than the rest. But he could not.

Romney somehow managed to get the “nice hair and looks presidential” vote, enough of it to hang on, and then once Santorum lost momentum, he took the wind out of EVERYONE’s sails, for good.

With the horrid turnout that we’ve seen over this primary, I will be surprised if Romney gets 30% of the vote in the general ...


32 posted on 04/08/2012 7:52:47 PM PDT by LibsRJerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: LibsRJerks

Gingrich had poor organization. Remember Virginia, his home state, where he failed to make the ballot? He was sitting on top of the polls until then. Nothing with Santorum. He was shown to be seriously not viable then.

This is where it all came crashing down for him. The voters realized that Gingrich had serious issues with his finances and organization against Romney, after he missed the VA ballot.

Then Gingrich lost in Iowa, finishing fourth behind Paul.

Santorum, never having lead in any poll, anywhere, spent all his time actually campaigning in Iowa, going door to door and fighting for votes.

This is also why Santorum has won 10 states and will win more. When the crunch in Iowa came down to it - Santorum was willing to do what he had to do to win.

When South Carolina came around, Newt hadn’t done anything before - losing badly in Iowa and in New Hampshire. Yes, Newt managed to win in South Carolina, but at that point, he had won one state - and so had Santorum.

Newt had an opportunity to seize control of the race and take the mantle, in Florida, but he fell far short of Romney there. Was this Santorum’s fault? No. Was it Santorum’s fault that Newt couldn’t connect with voters in Florida? No. Even if you took all of Santorum’s support and gave it to Newt, it would not have been enough.

So what did Newt do after losing in FL, winning in SC? Did he double down his campaign? No. Santorum did - winning in Missouri (where Gingrich didn’t even bother to run), and in Colorado and in Minnesota.

Was it Santorum’s fault that Gingrich didn’t even bother campaigning there? No. Was it Santorum’s fault that not only did he clobber Gingrich, he clobbered Romney? That he got over 50+ percent in Missouri, showing that he could beat Romney in the head to head?

Was this Santorum’s fault for fighting for votes that Newt Gingrich wasn’t willing to fight for?

Newt has only himself to blame for choosing the easier option of campaigning in GA and in SC and in FL, and in the other southern states where he lost. It was a terrible strategy.

Is it Santorum’s fault for any of this?

The reason that people did not unite behind Newt, is simply because they didn’t believe that he could get it done. And they were right.


38 posted on 04/08/2012 11:20:23 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: LibsRJerks
You are a fool to compare the primaries to the general election.

Well, I think you are a fool also!
Just because you use the language like that identifies you as an uneducated, foolish communicator.

The primary was a competition that will have one winner. Duh! So the conservative vote was split five ways, four ways, then three, then two. What does it matter?
The problem wasn't the conservatives lack of unity, it was their lack of superior leadership.
I started with Cain and the 9-9-9 plan. I sent lots of money, then Woops!
Then I switched to Gingrich and I watched him set himself on fire after Florida.
I never liked Santorum, Paul is unelectable.
I still like Newt but he ruined his chances, torpedoed his own campaign for reasons unknown to me. Why didn't he stick with his original plan, the one where he refused to attack other Republicans?

So the “nice hair and looks presidential” guy was left standing. Why? because more people voted for him! They didn't vote for the other guys. I'm not going to lie about why it happened. Romney turned out to be the "turtle" that Newt declared himself to be.

43 posted on 04/09/2012 3:13:03 PM PDT by ThirstyMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson