Posted on 02/13/2012 8:26:17 AM PST by VinL
It is a free country. Anyone can run as long as they like. National Review is a liberal publication now.
This is “noise talk” and mostly promoted by Romney no doubt. I don’t trust Romney and Ru Paul cutting a deal at the convention if they have a combined 50% or more.
Other Freepers have come up with a theory that Ru will cut a deal with Romnuts to get Rand a position in the cabinet, VP or some other plum. Frightening. And who would care except us?
Why is National Review still in print if no one buys it?
ABB, maybe we should add National Review to the Dinosaur Media Watch List? No reason the tepid right shouldnt be tracked as it circles the toilet bowl, right?
I agree with you, in majority part. If you look at some of the recent state polls, Romney is between 20-30-; and Rick/Newt are in mid-upper 50’s (combined).
They should be attacking Romney, and diminishing his numbers still further. Together, they can drive him from the race.
It seems to mean, Rick has to decide with whom he ultimately wants to cut a convention deal with- Mitt or Newt?
I want to see or here one excerpt where Newt urged Mr. Rogers to drop out. This is a game Santorum is playing and has played with his best buddies, the MSM.
THAT, I agree with completely. Rick used it as a defense to run his negative attack ads against Newt- funded by a Romney backer.
NR has always been in the pocket of the Progressives. Just ask The New American. They should all stay in as long as they like. If no one wins on the first ballot then we shall see the sparks fly. Hopefully there won’t be another Wendell Wilke
Is the National Review subsidized? Maybe a trust was set up to fund it? There’s not much advertising in its pages, for sure.
We know trust fund babies are littered throughout that publication, but, no, we arent sure how they are financially backed. Evidently, profitability isn’t the issue. The same said for all of the dying dinosaur entities.
Keep pushing, Newt. You are the only one with a record of conservative accomplishment. Since when is this pulp publication a conservative journal?
Now, they're not.
I suspect the writers at National Review are idiots.
I'm usually right in that judgment BTW.
Seems like a ping worthy thread.
Judging by the low ceiling that Milt has in winning states and his inability to consolidate any further support no matter how hard he hits the other candidates, I would say your friends are the ones mistaken. In my right wing circles, some of whom are rank and file middle of the road GOP voters, the topic seems to come up more frequently how weak Milt is after we were told how he is inevitable by all the usual outlets.
There is just no way Romney is going to be the nominee while Santorum rides shotgun in the polls with him. If Milt doesn’t win MI by a decent amount or loses, I will bet all of your friends will have serious second thought on his inevitability too.
Here's the argument.
On Free Republic where Mitt Romney advocacy is forbidden, it's probably true that any Santorum supporters will vote for Gingrich if Santorum drops out (that's what I would do if that happened today), and any Gingrich supporters will vote for Santorum if Gingrich drops out.
Polls consistently show that's **NOT** true nationally for Santorum voters. A significant percentage would vote for Mitt Romney if Santorum were to drop out.
I'm guessing that's due to family values issues — the same reason that lots of evangelicals supported Mitt Romney four years ago, and I'm embarrassed to have counted myself in that number until Huckabee won the 2008 Iowa caucuses. Four years ago I didn't know the details of Romney's history of flip-flopping on abortion, and considering that I am considerably more invested in politics than most people, how many other evangelicals are still unaware of Romney's past?
I haven't seen recent polls showing what would happen to Gingrich supporters if Gingrich were to drop out. We need to see those polls, and we need to see not only national polls but polls broken down by key upcoming states that track likely Republican primary voters/caucusgoers.
At this point I believe it makes the most sense for both candidates to stay in because Gingrich and Santorum appeal to different voting groups, and it's not at all clear that having one of the two candidates drop out wouldn't have the unintended effect of helping rather than hurting Mitt Romney.
That opinion could change if polling data shows people's second choices are changing.
This is such a lie. Gingrich is not campaigning, is he? He just hasn’t declared that he has dropped out. Why is he lying to the public?
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.