• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Romney's winning Michigan

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
No matter who wins the Primary, I want either Palin, O'Donnel or Trump picked as running mates. They all deserve more face time to really convince their base and everyone else how ultra-conservative they are and why that would be a really good thing for the nation. I mean, this Primary is going off the deep end anyway so why not throw a couple of anchors through the deck and hull just for the fun of it?
 
loki8481 said:
what's wrong with changing your mind on an issue?

if you want a President who's going to stick to his convictions, write in GWB.
Click to expand...

Craig's essentially repeating what he reads on common dreams; it's got nothing to do with conviction, "flipflopping" (karl rove term for what common sense would classify as changing views based on changing reality of the situation), or MittRomney. My team versus the other team; no critical thought needed.
 
Last edited:
loki8481 said:
what's wrong with changing your mind on an issue?

if you want a President who's going to stick to his convictions, write in GWB.
Click to expand...

Nothing.

Romney doesn't change his mind on issues. He changes his positions, not his mind.

That's why when he's running for governer of Massachussets, he's 'better for gays than Ted Kennedy', and now he's 'strongly anti-gay rights'. He didn't 'change his mind'.

There are countless examples like this besides gay rights. His only real agendas are getting elected, and helping the wealthy class. Everything else is to help get elected.
 
Last edited:
halik said:
Craig's essentially repeating what he reads on common dreams; it's got nothing to do with conviction, "flipflopping" (karl rove term for what common sense would classify as changing views based on changing reality of the situation), or MittRomney. My team versus the other team; no critical thought needed.
Click to expand...

You can't paint with that broad of a brush. There is no "changing reality" when it comes to abortion rights or gay rights. These are things Romney stood for as Governor of Massachusetts, and things he has largely abandoned because they are politically inconvenient now.

To be sure, every politician does to some extent, but they should still be challenged on it.

Obama was rightfully challenged on his deficit spending after railing against deficit spending while in congress and on the campaign trail. I happen to think there is a much better case there for a "changing reality" with the nation's economy in free fall when he took office. It would have helped if his initial criticisms were more precise. i.e. all deficit spending is not bad, but funding an unnecessary war during a time of prosperity with deficit spending is very shortsighted. Of course, that's not as nice a sound bite.
 
Running in his home state and winning by a paltry 3% is a rather pathetic showing IMO. It shouldn't have even been competitive there. Let's not forget that Romney beat McCain in Michigan by a much wider margin in 2008, when he lost the primary. So what's happening this time? Romney will very likely win this primary, but it isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.
 
woolfe9999 said:
Running in his home state and winning by a paltry 3% is a rather pathetic showing IMO. It shouldn't have even been competitive there. Let's not forget that Romney beat McCain in Michigan by a much wider margin in 2008, when he lost the primary. So what's happening this time? Romney will very likely win this primary, but it isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.
Click to expand...
Quit lapping up that "home state" garbage the media keeps spewing. The overwhelming majority in this state have no such feelings. His dad left the office of Governor here 43 years ago. Many don't even know who George Romney was. Mitt's accomplishments were all in Massachusetts. He did little more than marry in this state.
 
Last edited:
Newt just got another big check from his sugar daddy. So I guess at least one person is for Newt. And so he remains in the race. The race for more money....that is.
Politics in America 2012.......
And at one time we made a laughing stock out of elections in 3rd would countries.
Now we have become that.
Get a check. Get a vote. Rule the country.
 
Looks like Romney actually got way more votes in MI this time than he did in 2008, with an apparently lower turnout.

Edit: No, it looks like turnout was higher, but Romney did get way more votes.
 
Last edited:
Santorum blew it, pure and simple. He could not restrain himself from saying not one, but two major crazy things in the few days prior to the election-attacking JFK on the seperation of church and state and attacking the American dream of higher education.

In each gaffe Santorum seriously misread, misunderstood or misinterpreted the original item he was criticizing. Even if a voter agreed with his stands it would be scary to elect a person with such faulty decision making skills to the position GWB aptly described as The Decider. Can you imagine such a bozo trying to parse diplomatic documents? I don't think he could properly interpret a recipe for bread.

I was sincerely hoping Santorum would get the GOP nomination but it seems like he is trying his hardest to prove he is third tier and totally unsuitable.
 
LTC8K6 said:
You basically agreed with me, though. Who said anything about a President Santorum? That was never even a possibility, imo.
Click to expand...

How is it that I "basically agreed" with you when I said the direct opposite? Most Democrats would rather see the President face Santorum than Romney because Santorum is simply an easier opponent and the President would destroy him, whereas a race against Romney would likely be fairly close.
 
Last edited:
Don Vito Corleone said:
How is it that I "basically agreed" with you when I said the direct opposite? Most Democrats would rather see the President face Santorum than Romney because Santorum is simply an easier opponent and the President would destroy him, whereas a race against Romney would likely be fairly close.
Click to expand...

You:

The only reason any Democrat would prefer to see Romney win the primary is that one never knows what might conceivably happen

Me:

A Santorum victory in MI might scramble things in the GOP, and then who knows?
 
Thump553 said:
Santorum blew it, pure and simple. He could not restrain himself from saying not one, but two major crazy things in the few days prior to the election-attacking JFK on the seperation of church and state and attacking the American dream of higher education.

In each gaffe Santorum seriously misread, misunderstood or misinterpreted the original item he was criticizing. Even if a voter agreed with his stands it would be scary to elect a person with such faulty decision making skills to the position GWB aptly described as The Decider. Can you imagine such a bozo trying to parse diplomatic documents? I don't think he could properly interpret a recipe for bread.

I was sincerely hoping Santorum would get the GOP nomination but it seems like he is trying his hardest to prove he is third tier and totally unsuitable.
Click to expand...

it's an awkward night when Santorum -- after running on a campaign to impose a Catholic Theocracy on the US -- loses the Catholic vote to Romney (and most votes, I believe, except self-identifying "extremely conservative" and "evangelical' voters.)
 
Romney iirc, got 45% of the catholic vote, not a majority. He's outspent Santorum 5 or 6 to 1 so far in the primaries and won with a 3% margin in a state that he won in 08 by 9 points. A bad showing no matter how you try to spin it.

He with the most money wins.
 
Last edited:
soundforbjt said:
Romney iirc, got 45% of the catholic vote, not a majority. He outspent Santorum 5 or 6 to 1 and won with a 3% margin in a state that he won in 08 by 9 points. A bad showing no matter how you try to spin it.

He with the most money wins.
Click to expand...

link? CNN last night said that Romney outspent Santorum, but that the margin was less than 2 to 1.
 
as far as the Catholic vote went, it was...

43% Romney
37% Santorum
9% Paul
8% Gingrich

the 2008 comparisons always seem a bit faulty to me... by this point in that election cycle, Romney was the not-McCain vote.
 
Blackjack200 said:
link? CNN last night said that Romney outspent Santorum, but that the margin was less than 2 to 1.
Click to expand...

Correct, I was referring to the totals for all states and forgot to explain that.

Here's an example of Super Tuesday spending:

*** Super Tuesday ad spending: As in the other contests, Romney and his allies have a sizable spending edge in the Super Tuesday states.
Ohio: Restore Our Future $2.25 million; Romney $1.2 million; Winning Our Future $498,000; Santorum $275,000; Red, White and Blue Fund $255,000
Georgia: Restore Our Future $1.5 million; Winning Our Future $1.1 million; Romney $327,000; Santorum $152,000; Gingrich $15,000
Tennessee: Restore Our Future $915,000; Winning Our Future $464,000; Santorum $130,000; Gingrich $3,000
Oklahoma: Restore Our Future $378,000; Winning Our Future $323,000; Santorum $90,000, Romney $8,000; Gingrich $2,000
Idaho: Romney $37,000
Click to expand...

"Restore our future" is Romney's SuperPac

"Winning our future" is Newt's

"Red, White, and Blue Fund" is Santorum's

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/29/10539150-first-thoughts-winning-ugly
 
woolfe9999 said:
Running in his home state and winning by a paltry 3% is a rather pathetic showing IMO. It shouldn't have even been competitive there. Let's not forget that Romney beat McCain in Michigan by a much wider margin in 2008, when he lost the primary. So what's happening this time? Romney will very likely win this primary, but it isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.
Click to expand...

Did you forget the Democratic primary in Michigan in 2008? from wiki:

However, the Democratic National Committee determined that the date of the Michigan Democratic Primary violated the party rules and ultimately decided to sanction the state, stripping all 156 delegates and refusing to seat them at the convention. Despite this, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the primary could go ahead as scheduled.[2] The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee later met on May 31, 2008, and agreed to seat all of Michigan's delegates with each delegate having only receive half a vote.[3] As a result of this compromise, Michigan had 78 votes at the convention. On August 24, the delegates had full voting rights restored.[4]
Click to expand...

How quickly you forget the fuck-ups of the Democrats and the way they stack the deck for party supremacy with super delegates.
 
monovillage said:
Did you forget the Democratic primary in Michigan in 2008? from wiki:



How quickly you forget the fuck-ups of the Democrats and the way they stack the deck for party supremacy with super delegates.
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure what that has to do with anything? It's not even really a fuckup, it was an effort to keep states form continually pushing all their primary nomination contests earlier and earlier, that was it. Both parties have that issue.
 
LTC8K6 said:
You:

The only reason any Democrat would prefer to see Romney win the primary is that one never knows what might conceivably happen

Me:

A Santorum victory in MI might scramble things in the GOP, and then who knows?
Click to expand...

You said Romney would be easier for the President to beat than Santorum in a general election. I completely disagree, as do the polls. He would beat Santorum like a rented mule, whereas Romney might be able to make it competitive or even potentially win.
 
eskimospy said:
I'm really not sure what that has to do with anything? It's not even really a fuckup, it was an effort to keep states form continually pushing all their primary nomination contests earlier and earlier, that was it. Both parties have that issue.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the official Democrat party line on Michigan in 2008. BTW Hillary won it with 56% of the vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top