I’m going to park this here so maybe someone will respond/discuss. As the “newbie,” i don’t feel like dealing with the hassle that would be involved if i posted this as a thread. Hope you don’t mind. It’s related to this article.
I have a question for those here who are wiser than I. My question, “Why the rush to decide among the 3?” is based on several assumptions:
1. The IA caucus was an open primary, so there were crossover voters (dems and GOP-E) who voted.
2. The SC primary is also open, so ditto #1. (NH doesn’t really count; it’s a northern state where Newt & Perry won’t do well; it has gone Dem in 4 of the last 5 elections; and it only has 4 delegates anyway).
3. Since IA and SC are open primaries and therefore easily influenced by non-conservative voting blocs, these first 2 primaries do not reflect accurately the will of the 70-75% non-Romney conservatives.
4. The liberal media wants Romney because he’ll lose in the general election.
5. The GOP-E media want Romney because they want to retain their power & corruption, and in their egocentric state, they are incapable of realizing Romney will lose. (The more corrupt among them do not CARE if he loses.)
6. The Dems want Romney for the same reason as the media (see #4).
My question: Based on the above assumptions/presumptions, WHY is there such a frenetic rush to push 2 of the 3 remaining conservative candidates out and get behind 1 of them?
I know, I know... “We need to get together behind ONE PERSON!!!! If we don’t Romney will win!!!” But why? Is that based on emotion or rational intellectual thought?
Please do no answer with a rationale that includes any reference to polls, the media, or the opinion of the masses. That’s my point: The “masses” are being brainwashed into believing “Romney is our Savior.”
The way the rigged primaries are set up now, if we make this important decision based on the IA and SC primaries, then we are basing our decision on TWO OPEN PRIMARIES and LIBERAL POLLING DATA. Again... Why? There seems to be a concerted push here to make a premature decision. Why?
One more thing... An observation: It has been my experience in life that when people BEHAVE and ACT like a winner, they are more apt to win. Isn’t that what Democrats do? They ACT like winners. Look at the recent non-recess, recess (unconstitutional) appointment. They LAUGH at our weeping and gnashing of teeth and frenzied behavior.
If conservatives here and at other Internet sites would start ignoring the negative brainwashing by the media and start behaving with the quiet self-assurance that winners exhibit, then we would not be “stuck” with Romney.
IMHO.
“Please do no answer with” = “Please do not answer with...”
I think the only ones rushing are the media because they want more time to devise the plan on taking that person down with so many it’s costly to develop all of those plans. For the Rinos they want it settled to save their money.
My understanding is nothing is settled until st least March with the schedule as it stands. As such I see only a few willing and able to stick it out - Romney and Gingrich for sure - not sure about perry given his hesitancy after Iowa and Santorum I worry about cash flow. The other two aren’t worth discussing.
If it comes down to Gingerich and Romney by March then I see Gingerich coming out on top but hell have to hold on until then. The other two I’m just really worried about commitment and cash if they run into any bumps. I think newt is in for the haul just to spite mitt if need be...which I applaud.
Well, my advice is simple.
Vote for the most conservative dude.
Didn’t fail in Iowa, won’t fail in NH. I was impressed with the outcome in Iowa, and I suspect there are a few more surprises yet to come.
Good advice.
Because we are the stupid party so we let the enemy media pick our candidates.
I'm in Florida and I have already voted by mail for my favorite not-Romney. I voted for the guy I think is qualified, not the guy the media is telling me is the only one who can win. I guess I'm stupid that way.
Happy trails.
I don’t think it’s an accident that the first three events on the schedule allow Dems and Independents to help us pick our candidate, and I don’t think it’s an accident we keep getting the most moderate nominee as a result. The deck is stacked against conservatives that would upset the looting of the taxpayers.
I think it may have to do with the ratio of primary states that are "winner take all" vs. proportional distribution of delegates. In the WTA states, Romney will grab the ring and if the conservative base is fractured among three candidates, then conservatives lose. If enough of the states are proportional, then I think the rush to unite everyone behind a single candidate becomes irrelevant. Just my two cents.
I've been looking out on the internet for information on how the states are set up, but if anyone has the info, that would be great.