Posted on 02/05/2012 12:55:11 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
“His abrasive manner combined with his marital history.”
No, I think it is much simpler to explain. Many women - protestations to the contrary - vote for good looking men. Both Mitt and Rick are attractive men, while Newt is not.
Of course, I think men are more likely to vote for an attractive woman as well. I often wonder if I and other men would like Sarah Palin as much if she wasn’t nice looking?
Looks affect outlook!
We liked Margaret Thatcher, didn’t we? And I can think of about 1,000 hot women we wouldn’t vote for.
I disagree with why you think women are voting for Mitt. I think it’s because Republican women are far more likely to be social liberals than Republican men. The exit polls I looked at in Florida clearly showed that voters knew which candidate was more conservative and which was more liberal. They opted for the liberal.
i think I heard on Fox News Sunday today that Santorum is the only one who can win against Obama. Maybe Wallace was referring to the Rasmussen poll.
Well said, couldn’t agree more, Finny! Not to mention as Newt said today on Face the Nation, his moon plan would involve NO increase in federal spending. He is planning to repurpose the budget NASA already has as well as get private sector involvement in the mix. Last I heard NASA was busy studying things like global warming, so there is certainly room to reassign those funds to a moon base. It’s shocking that even people who call themselves conservatives would prefer to see us become a weak European socialist welfare state as opposed to becoming a leader in the ambitious, groundbreaking national security advantages with the side benefit of developing new technology that space travels offers.
Santorum is the most conservative candidate, not perfect, but very excellent:
“Another source is VoteSmart. It shows a 100% prolife position. His National Taxpayer rating is 76%. ACU ratings in the 80-90% range.Some other positions:
2006 FreedomWorks – Positions 83%
2005 Americans for Tax Reform – Positions 95%
2005 FreedomWorks – Positions 63%
2005 National Taxpayers Union – Positions 69%
2004 Americans for Tax Reform – Positions 95%
2004 American Shareholders Association – Positions - 90%
2004 National Taxpayers Union – Positions 83%
Here are his ratings from when he was in Congress:
American Conservative Union — 88%
National Right to Life Committee — 100%
Americans for Tax Reform — 95%
National Tax Limitation Committee — 92%
U.S. Chamber of Commerce — 88%
League of Private Property Voters — 94% “
http://www.redstate.com/wosg/2012/01/06/rick-santorum-yes-he-is-a-true-conservative/
Also, Santorum voted AGAINST NAFTA, which probably gave him a bit of a lower rating from some conservative groups, but imo, voting against NAFTA makes Rick MORE conservative.
That doesn’t mean the theory is a bad one. It looks like some of these midwestern states could be the ones where the combined vote totals of Newt and Rick could swamp Romney. Your argument falls out the window if Mitt is a little more unpopular in future states. For people like myself who find either Newt or Rick acceptable, it would be a bitter pill to swallow if we see enough states where their combined totals could have beaten Mitt but were split and Mitt ends up with the nomination because of it. It’s still a very likely scenario.
Can we count on Rick to throw his delegates to Newt and not to Mitt though? I’m honestly not sure how the brokered convention works. Can the candidates control who their delegates vote for or can they vote for whoever they want
Not to mention there are still proportional delegates in most states. So just because Rick “wins” a state, just as in Iowa, Mitt (or Newt) could walk away with the same amount of delegates if he’s a close second. Likewise, if the vote is split between all 3, they could all walk away with equal delegates.
One thing’s for sure, this huge drumbeat that Nevada was Romney’s “second big win” and new questioning of the other candidates as to whether or not they should get out of the race now is just ridiculous. Everyone knew Romney was going to win Nevada whether or not he won anything else but New Hampshire. The fact (as of the current count) he performed worse in Nevada then he did in 2008 shows a real weakness and shows that he got no extra momentum off of the Florida win.
I did something interesting below. I listed all the states by how Gallup rates them on how conservative they are, along with their delegates and whether they’re statewide winner-take-all. Turns out NONE of these 8 midwestern states are winner-take-all, so there is a chance to ding Romney here even if he wins by small margins. Most of the states are moderate politically, none are liberal, and 2 are conservative. That makes them toss-up territory since Florida and Iowa are also moderate.
Also note MOST delegates are in states MORE conservative than these states. Romney is only guaranteed Utah out of the conservative states. The key to Newt winning the nomination is to win by BIG margins in the conservative states as he did in SC (although he got an extra delegate boost there because they were WTA WITHIN EACH COUNTY, which I didn’t try to list below), and to lose by small margins in these midwestern states. If Newt gets 70% of the delegates from the 21 conservative states and 40% of the delegates from the other states, he could secure the nomination. Mitt would have to get 70% from the liberal states and then 45% from the other states to secure the nomination. So Mitt has to do a little better outside his base than Newt does to win the nomination.
I do think Romney’s going to do a big carpet-bombing ad campaign in Ohio, because it’s a very key, pivotal state, so he’s likely to win that one, although it again is not winner-take-all.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152459/Mississippi-Conservative-State-Liberal.aspx
TOTAL DELEGATES BY STATE (1144 needed to win):
CON 909
MOD 661
LIB 605
??? 32
CON Mississippi (primary) - 40
CON Utah (primary) - 40 (WTA)
CON Wyoming (caucus) - 29
CON Alabama (primary) - 50 (WTA)
CON Louisiana (primary) - 46
CON Arkansas (primary) - 36
CON Oklahoma (primary) - 43 (WTA)
CON Nebraska (primary) - 35
CON Idaho (caucus) - 32
CON Tennessee (primary) - 58 (WTA)
CON South Carolina (primary) – 25 [GINGRICH]
CON North Dakota (caucus) - 28
CON South Dakota (primary) - 28
CON Kansas (caucus) - 40
CON Texas (primary) - 155
CON Georgia (primary) - 76
CON Indiana (primary) - 46 ***MIDWEST***
CON West Virginia (primary) - 31
CON Montana (primary) - 26
CON Missouri (GOP caucus) – 52 ***MIDWEST***
CON Kentucky (primary) - 45
MOD North Carolina (primary) - 55
MOD Ohio (primary) - 66 ***MIDWEST***
MOD Virginia (primary) - 49
MOD Arizona (primary) - 29 (WTA)
MOD Florida (primary) - 50 (WTA) [ROMNEY]
MOD Iowa (caucus) – 28 [SANTORUM] ***MIDWEST***
MOD Michigan (primary) - 30 ***MIDWEST***
MOD New Mexico (primary) - 23
MOD Pennsylvania (primary) - 72 ***MIDWEST***
MOD Wisconsin (primary) - 42 ***MIDWEST***
MOD Colorado (caucus) - 36
MOD Minnesota (caucus) - 40 ***MIDWEST***
MOD Delaware (primary) - 17 (WTA)
MOD Nevada (caucus) - 28 [ROMNEY]
MOD Illinois (primary) - 69
MOD Alaska (caucus) - 27
LIB Maryland (primary) - 37
LIB Maine (caucus) - 24
LIB Vermont (primary) - 17
LIB Connecticut (primary) - 28
LIB New Hampshire (primary) – 12 [ROMNEY]
LIB Rhode Island (primary) - 19
LIB New Jersey (primary) - 50 (WTA)
LIB California (primary) - 172
LIB Hawaii (caucus) - 20
LIB New York (primary) - 95
LIB Washington (caucus) - 43
LIB Oregon (primary) - 28
LIB Massachusetts (primary) - 41
LIB District of Columbia (primary) - 19 (WTA)
??? U.S. Virgin Islands (caucus) - 9
??? Puerto Rico (primary) - 23
Newt was described as the leader of the hard-line conservatives in Congress in this 1984 article:
Newt doesn’t have to “act” as a conservative, he is one. He practically defined the term in the 1980s/1990s. The only way you can think Newt is not a conservative is to be ignorant of history. I would certainly like to see how many other members of Congress you can list that are more conservative than Newt. About the only people who can call him not conservative enough are people who live in the pundit world and don’t ever have to actually govern, in the real world where pure ideology just doesn’t always work as a mechanism for governing.
C'mon. Men vote with their heads. Women vote with their glands.
Hey Jim, I'm afraid the party's over. Freepers have turned into psychotic lunatics who think their paranoid delusions are "conservatism."
Please don't post Romney's unqualified lies here unless you're going to qualify them yourself. Newt DID NOT leave Congress under a cloud. Newt actually got reelected and then resigned of his own accord. Both Romney and Santorum have worse records. Santorum was voted out in a massive rout and Romney was so unpopular that he could not get reelected and chose not to run. Those are far bigger clouds than Newt left under. Newt left solely because the elections for Republicans lost a couple seats that year (the public backlashed against the Clinton impeachment which they did not generally approve of), he wasn't going to be reelected as Speaker because of it (Remember how shocked people were that Pelosi remained her party's leader after the Dems lost the House? That's not normal protocol.), and he didn't want to remain a distraction as a normal member who used to be Speaker. That's it. If you're associating the so-called "ethics investigations" (which were trumped-up Democrat nonsense just like they did with Sarah Palin) with his leaving the House, you don't know what you're talking about. They had nothing do to with it and were settled almost two years before.
I keep being told by the media that Newt is going to “implode” but it still hasn’t happened. Turns out it was just another of those media memes/lies meant to discredit Newt. In fact, it’s been Romney who’s committed severely damaging gaffe after gaffe after gaffe in this campaign. Yet the media never warned me to watch out for the gaffe-prone Mitt who can commit a gaffe at any time without warning...on firing people, disliking the poor, fumbling over his tax returns, etc.
How is he going to react when an opponent gets serious about attacking him? If he or his supporters think the reason he hasn't faced heavy fire is because there's nothing there to attack (and I believe they're sanctimonious enough to think just that), they're in for a VERY rude surprise Santorum starts to threaten Romney.
They may also be surprised (though I and others who know the type won't be) to see how quickly Santorum reveals himself to be a yelping puppy when attacked in the same manner bulldog Newt has been, except by then it might be too late. Wake up, Santorum supporters!!! For crying out loud, start smelling the coffee!
Sanctimonious people -- and Santorum is definitely sanctimonious -- are predictable, thus easily manipulated. Santorum, whether he knows it or not, is being manipulated. Gingrich is beyond the reach of the same kind of manipulation, which is why guys like Santorum are needed by Gingrich's foes.
THANK you, Jed-Jo! You’re shining the light of truth on Mitt’s Myths about Gingrich. WELL DONE, and ping to myself for future info ammo.
Well said Finny!!
That sounds like an oversimplification. Dan Quayle was never popular with women.
Once again, you are right on Finny.
I watched Newt's Space Policy speech from Florida unedited on C-Span twice and it was clearly the most inspiring speech I've heard in the last ten years ...maybe more. I have e-mailed the link to the C-Span archive of the speech to many of my friends.
Here's the link: Newt Gingrich Space Policy
It gripes the hell out me that people who have no vision and probably did not listen to the speech at all, start parroting the mainstream media.
Newt's command of history is nothing short of incredible, but of course it's easier and much less mentally taxing to simply repeat Bishop Mitt Romney's slanderous sound bites.
Go Newt Go!!
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.