Skip to comments.
Mitt Romney’s road to presidency this fall looks narrow on electoral map
The Washington Post ^
| April 30, 2012
| Chris Cillizza
Posted on 04/30/2012 9:13:27 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-193 next last
To: Theodore R.
The elites havent entirely nominated Ropmney: its the uninformed primary voters who have done this.Oh, but they were informed. They were informed by Romney's character assassination campaign ads. They were informed by the MSM of the phony scandals against his opponents. They were informed by GOP-elite ass kissers like Rove, Coulter and Hannity that Romney was the one and the others were scandal-ridden.
They were informed.
141
posted on
05/01/2012 10:33:42 AM PDT
by
TigersEye
(Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
To: CommerceComet
I am hoping Romney will continue to be a “flexible” politician. In Massachusetts he was wearing the liberal jacket. I would not be surprised if he dons the “right centrist” jacket if elected president. He can sense where the wind is blowing. If he turns to be a core conviction liberal, we are in trouble. I am hoping he will continue his reputation as a flip-flopping flexible politician and turn rightwards.
142
posted on
05/01/2012 11:05:49 AM PDT
by
entropy12
(Winning is the only thing...coach Vince Lombardi. Losers in elections have zero power.)
To: unkus
In that case, I dont see the Republicans standing up to 0bama any more then than they are doing now. Do you?
Of course! They'd have to out of sheer political necessity. If you are going to be the opposition party, you must oppose or else have no reason for existing.
143
posted on
05/01/2012 11:11:55 AM PDT
by
Antoninus
(Sorry, gone rogue.)
To: Dragonspirit
You dont win by losing, you win by winning.
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. In 2004, Republicans won big, but George W. Bush squandered his mandate and got entangled in things he should never have bothered with, including amnesty for illegal immigrants. That caused a defeat in 2006 and a huge loss in 2008 because Bush, like his father, was viewed as someone who had betrayed those who put him in office. That's one way you lose by winning.
In 2012, we are faced with the prospect of electing a Republican whose record indicates that he will begin betraying conservatives on day one after he's inaugurated. His record in Massachusetts is also one of causing party discord by promoting liberals and snubbing conservatives. Based on what we've seen from recent history, if Romney is president, we can therefore expect a catastrophic legislative defeat in 2014 and further losses in 2016 including the loss of the presidency--conservatives will not vote for a Judas once he is known as such. The Democrat coming into power in 2016 will have full control of everything with no hope of stopping him/her.
Now do you get it? This is not as simple as "you don't win by losing." Sometimes, in the long run, you do just that.
144
posted on
05/01/2012 11:20:10 AM PDT
by
Antoninus
(Sorry, gone rogue.)
To: Clintonfatigued; All
Nice breakdown CF. It could very well play out that way.
I still stand by my prediction that Obama will get blown out; he's a failure and he and his voters know it.
Romney wins easily with over 300 EV’s. The best Romney has going for him is that Obama is the worst POTUS in American history, period.
145
posted on
05/01/2012 11:30:52 AM PDT
by
GOPsterinMA
(The stench of Earth Pimp-age is permeating over the internet...)
To: Dagnabitt
Someone on another thread said hed never seen anyone post on FR that they planned to pull the lever for Barack Hussein Obama. I noted that I hadnt seen many such posts, but I had seen at least two. Make that three now. Curious times at FR.See his later posts on this thread. He wasn't being truthful.
146
posted on
05/01/2012 11:41:22 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
To: entropy12
I am hoping he will continue his reputation as a flip-flopping flexible politician and turn rightwards.Perhaps. Personally, I think that Romney, if he wins the election, will go with his instincts for statist solutions and actually wants some conflict with conservatives so he can posture himself as the reasonable moderate who is unafraid to anger the extremist conservatives. Line up the RINOs and Democrats and he doesn't need conservatives.
The Romney family has been fighting conservatism since the days of Goldwater. I doubt it will change in the near future.
147
posted on
05/01/2012 12:03:30 PM PDT
by
CommerceComet
(Obama vs. Romney - clear evidence that our nation has been judged by God and found wanting.)
To: Antoninus
In the long run, if you see Obama win re-election, you will have more liberal entitlement programs, more disability/welfare, more of everything the liberal agenda entails. The paradigm will shift yet again, and socialism will become the center. In 1992, the whole “Dont Ask Dont Tell” policy was considered a compromise, now it is considered an out of mainstream far right position. We lost by losing, which is always what happens.
It is crazy to me that you muster more antipathy toward Romney for what you think he might do on Day 1, then what Obama HAS done on Day 1. You think you are going to get Sarah Palin or John Bolton in 2016 if Romney loses? Nope, you are going to get Michael Bloomberg if Romney loses. Both parties always move to the center following a loss.
There is no re-do, there is no punishment to those who nominate the candidate you didn’t prefer. They most certainly will not “learn their lesson” if you support Obama for spite. They will become apathetic and move more to the left. If you want instead to move the country to its roots on the right, you need to make winning a habit.
148
posted on
05/01/2012 12:19:17 PM PDT
by
Dragonspirit
(Always remember President Token won only by defecting on his CFR pledge.)
To: CommerceComet
The Romney family has been fighting conservatism since the days of Goldwater. I doubt it will change in the near future.I agree.
149
posted on
05/01/2012 12:23:56 PM PDT
by
greyfoxx39
(The epitome of stupidity is a member of a proven racist sect running against a black man.)
To: Dragonspirit
In the long run, if you see Obama win re-election, you will have more liberal entitlement programs, more disability/welfare, more of everything the liberal agenda entails.
And that will change under Romney because....?
The paradigm will shift yet again, and socialism will become the center. In 1992, the whole Dont Ask Dont Tell policy was considered a compromise, now it is considered an out of mainstream far right position.
Might I remind you that Romney was in favor of homosexualizing the military. We lost that issue because Republican leaders like Romney and his ilk were on-board with the enemy. We lost because we allowed traitors like Romney into our midst who were never going to help us fight but only undermine us at critical moments. Your strategy seems to be to reward those who have a track record of stabbing conservatives in the back. Pure genius.
You think you are going to get Sarah Palin or John Bolton in 2016 if Romney loses? Nope, you are going to get Michael Bloomberg if Romney loses. Both parties always move to the center following a loss.
That is a flat-out wrong reading of things. When you allow liberal Republicans to win, you only guarantee that you will get more of them. That's how it works because the first thing they do once in office is begin purging conservatives. Perhaps you don't live here in the northeast like I do, so you may be genuinely ignorant.
But now that you've been educated you have no further excuse for making such a specious argument.
150
posted on
05/01/2012 1:35:08 PM PDT
by
Antoninus
(Sorry, gone rogue.)
To: presently no screen name
Well everyone had a chance to vote for Newt. The GOP didnt give us NEWT! So this nonsense about the GOP giving us mitt - NO ONE had to support him. Bingo. There were about 30 primaries before Santorum dropped out. The opportunity was there to vote for Santorum or Gingrich.
I live in Utah and the Utah primary is the last primary election in the country. I still plan on voting. It will be interesting to see who is on the ballot (Romney for sure, Santorum? Gingrich - maybe, unless he never paid the bounced check...)
151
posted on
05/01/2012 1:56:38 PM PDT
by
Utah Girl
(John 15:12, Matthew 5:44)
To: Utah Girl
Santorum and Gingrich will be on it, unless like you said
Gingrich - maybe, unless he never paid the bounced check..
It's a sad realization for America that romney had mega $$ support and verbal support and a Patriot like Newt had to make plans day by day because of little support. They don't love America only want what she stands for and no fight in them to keep it.
To: presently no screen name
True to an extent. Santorum dropped out because after the Wisconsin loss, money donations to his campaign vanished. I’m pretty sure the same thing happened to Gingrich, only much much earlier (when he said that the South would vote for him and actually that didn’t happen after Georgia.) And after Delaware last week, I do believe Gingrich was out of luck in regards to monetary donations.
153
posted on
05/01/2012 3:26:41 PM PDT
by
Utah Girl
(John 15:12, Matthew 5:44)
To: JCBreckenridge
If you look through my historical threads I’ve never advocated Christie for any federal office; I understand that he is the solution to problems many states don’t have. For a liberal northeastern state, he is an absolute fascist (in a good way).
Until someone has lived here and watched their property taxes increase $500 to $600 annually, I take their opinions of him with a grain of salt.
To: GOPsterinMA; AuH2ORepublican; randita; BigSkyFreeper
Auh2orepublican correctly pointed out that I forgot Florida. IMHO, Romney is the slight favorite there.
One thing no one remembers is that Obama almost carried Georgia and Montana in the last election. With Georgia, it was obviously a huge turnout in inner-city Atlanta. I don’t know what happened in Montana. John McCain and Sarah Palin had natural appeal there as westerners.
155
posted on
05/01/2012 4:39:04 PM PDT
by
Clintonfatigued
(A liberal's compassion is limited to the size of other peoples' paychecks)
To: Clintonfatigued; Impy; Perdogg; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; Kenny Bunk; nutmeg
You must talk to my Mom, because BOTH OF YOU WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT NOVEMBER!!!
Think of Obama as the carbonized crumbs of a slice of burnt toast. You know, the black, crunchy stuff that you shake out.
I'm not saying to take him lightly, GOD NO. But he's done, unless video of Mitt eating uncooked aborted fetuses while on a coke binge appears.
156
posted on
05/01/2012 4:58:08 PM PDT
by
GOPsterinMA
(The stench of Earth Pimp-age is permeating over the internet...)
To: EternalVigilance
Continue to bring as much focus as I can on the non-negotiable, indispensable first principles of the republic.
Try to convince those who call themselves conservatives that if they want the republic to survive they
MUST NOT compromise those non-negotiable principles
for anyone or for any politically expedient reasons.
Gather together all of those who have made such a commitment to core American principle into a cogent, coherent, permanent, potent political force for good.
If Romney should be the nominee, I will seriously consider ... not at this point promise ... to consider a write-in vote for President. Down-ticket, I have already searched out the most conservative available.
I vote in Maine, so this time around, my vote actually counts, as we are poised for a counter-revolution spurred by universal dislike of our RINO-Girl Senatrices.
157
posted on
05/01/2012 5:39:13 PM PDT
by
Kenny Bunk
(So, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can't figure out if Obama is a Natural Born Citizen?)
To: Kenny Bunk
Well, I guess that’s progess, sorta.
158
posted on
05/01/2012 5:43:44 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(Obama v. Romney: Zero plus Zero still equals Zero.)
To: Utah Girl
money donations to his campaign vanished. Santorum $pent TOO much for his lust to LIE about NEWT. And he started his lies during the debates in the after reports right after the debates which cost him nothing but cost him any support from me thereafter.
To: Antoninus
In that case, I dont see the Republicans standing up to 0bama any more then than they are doing now. Do you?
Of course! They’d have to out of sheer political necessity. If you are going to be the opposition party, you must oppose or else have no reason for existing.
Well, the republicans are doing a poor job so far.
160
posted on
05/01/2012 7:02:09 PM PDT
by
unkus
(Silence Is Consent)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-193 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson