• 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.

What matters about Florida's Republican primary

C

Craig234

Lifer
1. Negative ads are what works
2. The normal situation is for anonymous donors to pay for most of the advertising
3. That advertising has the dominant effect on who wins
4. Saying whatever helps get elected, contradicting earlier positions, works

Background facts:

1. 92% of the ads were negative
2. Romney ran over 12,000 ads; Gingrich ran 210
3. With the large outspending by Romney, the polls greatly shifted in his favor.

So why is Romney going to fight for changing these things that are how he wins?

Ideas are not what is winning elections. What's worse about Santorum's? Paul's? Etc.?

Money obtained by wealthy donors mostly with policy agendas is what's winning.

Much of this is the case with Democrats as well, they are just more disliking it but they do it as they have to to win as well. Obama has huge donations.

The guy who gets elected and his top competitors will all tell the people the above is wrong, that they aren't bought, because that's what they need to say to get elected.

Exceptions can say otherwise a bit - while they lose, like Gingrich dependent on one gambling figure or Huntsman dependent on family donations.

Things haven't 'always been this way'. When Carter and Reagan competed, they took no donations - the funding was from the taxpayer voluntary fund.

There's little more important than the Supreme Court, who has had right-win justices make this financing possible (5-4 in Citizens United).

Even voters who don't like Obama on many policies should consider voting for him for better Supreme Court nominations. It would be terrible to get more radical righties.
 
Ummm, I believe Romney won because people in general do not like Gingrich. Romney is the better candidate of the two.

If you want to make a comparison to negative ads, go right ahead.

Doesn't mean you are right.


Just have the mods lock up this thread, and create a new one about how much you hate the Citizens United decision, so at least then we are being honest with ourselves.

I mean, you are *seriously* entertaining the idea that Santorum & Paul are better candidates than Romney & Gingrich? They have the better messages? You of all people?
 
Last edited:
What really matters is that Romney will be the candidate Obama has to face and the one who is most likely to present a challenge. The more you talk about SCOTUS judges the more inclined I am to vote for Romney. I would not have the Constitution interpreted as a salad bowl if it suited the causes you endorse.
 
Craigfail as usual: assuming that correlation = causation. Romney used negative ads, he won. That doesn't mean that he won because of negative ads, he might have won by an even bigger margin using other ads. Maybe Newtster has too much baggage? Maybe some voters were turned off by some of his previous actions?

Craig is just whining about the C.U. ruling again, disguised to look like something else.
 
People just don't like newt. Newt had some momentum but Newt is like a turd in my toilet. A turd circling my toilet bowl builds momentum on the way down. However, eventually it loses out to gravity and goes down. Newt = a stuborn floater.
 
Dulanic said:
People just don't like newt. Newt had some momentum but Newt is like a turd in my toilet. A turd circling my toilet bowl builds momentum on the way down. However, eventually it loses out to gravity and goes down. Newt = a stuborn floater.
Click to expand...

Romney is one of the most hated candidates in a long time in the party, hence something like six other candidates who took the lead in polls and him staying low for a long time.

Your comment does not explain why Mitt is winning - they could have picked any of the alternatives, like Santorum.

But negative ads killed alternatives. All of them are bad, but money is winning it.
 
Dulanic said:
People just don't like newt. Newt had some momentum but Newt is like a turd in my toilet. A turd circling my toilet bowl builds momentum on the way down. However, eventually it loses out to gravity and goes down. Newt = a stuborn floater.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. The further right doesn't like Romney either but he is perceived as the electable candidate. Romney is more moderate than Newt and will certainly do better than Newt with independents.
 
Craig234 said:
1. Negative ads are what works
2. The normal situation is for anonymous donors to pay for most of the advertising
3. That advertising has the dominant effect on who wins
4. Saying whatever helps get elected, contradicting earlier positions, works
Click to expand...

If you believe all of that, why do you support democracy again? Basically, you're saying the sheeple are stupid and easily swayed (which may have some truth), so why are we trusting the average idiot with the vote again?
 
Craig234 said:
Romney is one of the most hated candidates in a long time in the party, hence something like six other candidates who took the lead in polls and him staying low for a long time.

Your comment does not explain why Mitt is winning - they could have picked any of the alternatives, like Santorum.

But negative ads killed alternatives. All of them are bad, but money is winning it.
Click to expand...

Sure it does, Mitt used money to buy sticks to help poke the turd down faster than it would have gone natually.

Santorum never had the momentum really so it's not applicable.
 
Craig234 said:
Romney is one of the most hated candidates in a long time in the party,
Click to expand...

I mean, we all know you just make things up to prove your point, but to do it so blatantly now...

The key to understanding how the world works is to understand how people truly feel. Everyone has a deep side to themselves, and a superficial side to themselves. So long as you continue to believe the superficial, you will continue to be wrong. It takes effort to really understand other people. Effort that you seem to not care one bit about putting forth.


I mean, you really do come across as passionate about the welfare of other people - except you seem to lack the desire to understand other people.
 
Last edited:
Dulanic said:
Sure it does, Mitt used money to buy sticks to help poke the turd down faster than it would have gone natually.

Santorum never had the momentum really so it's not applicable.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I can't discuss the issue with someone who responds to 'money gave Romney the edge' with 'that's not it, the other guy wasn't doing well.'

So if I say steroids helped a box win, your response would be 'that's not it, his opponents were losing.'

You completely ignored the point in my post and did not get it.

You know, I've mentioned before that in a recent federal election, something like 92% or 94% of races went to the candidate who had the most money to spend.

I'm sure you are ready to helpfully say 'the opponents weren't winning is why they lost.'

If Gingrich had the money advantage and was far ahead of Romney, you could post the same thing you did just swapping their names.

Romney and Gingrich both had terrible negatives. One had a lot more money about it.

You imply that Romney was always going to beat all the others not because of money. The facts do not support you. Romney was widely despised.

You don't get why responding to the point 'money let Romney make Gingrich look horrible' with 'that's not it, Gingrich looked horrible' is not getting it.

They all 'look horrible' in my opinion; the money is what allowed picking who was made to look terrible to voters.

The main exception to this was Perry, but he had to practically eat a baby in a debate to be ruined in the polls he did so badly in them. He had a period as front runner.

#1 money guy is #1 in the race. Shocking.

What part of over 12,000 tv ads to 210 being a big factor is hard for you?
 
cubby1223 said:
I mean, you really do come across as passionate about the welfare of other people - except you seem to lack the desire to understand other people.
Click to expand...

In order to construct a more perfect world some feel obliged to isolate themselves from it. It works very well if you can block out others who threaten notions which must simply be. Then all one has to do is preach from the tower.
 
Craig234 said:
You imply that Romney was always going to beat all the others not because of money. The facts do not support you. Romney was widely despised.

You don't get why responding to the point 'money let Romney make Gingrich look horrible' with 'that's not it, Gingrich looked horrible' is not getting it.
Click to expand...

What Craig means is that you aren't agreeing with him. It's not possible that people can make up their minds looking at Newt's record. It's not possible for them to question his Moon Base ideas. You must believe that money is the sole influence because he said it, you must believe it and that settles it.

Newt can't get elected. Romney has a chance.

Here's a little tidbit.

Florida GOP voters lift Romney on electability

Voters in Tuesday's Florida Republican primary chose Mitt Romney as the candidate best able to beat President Barack Obama in the fall, preferring electability over ideology in lifting the former Massachusetts governor to a broad victory despite concerns that his issue positions are not conservative enough.

ROMNEY RECAPTURES ELECTABILTY: A majority of Florida GOP voters said Romney is the candidate best able to beat Obama in a general election matchup; only about 3 in 10 said the same of Newt Gingrich. And Romney carried 58 percent of the votes among those seeking a candidate who could defeat the president in November. Gingrich had a strong showing among those seeking a true conservative and a narrow edge over Romney among those seeking an experienced candidate.
Click to expand...

Full article here. http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/31/2617860/florida-gop-voters-consider-debates.html
 
Last edited:
Mursilis said:
If you believe all of that, why do you support democracy again? Basically, you're saying the sheeple are stupid and easily swayed (which may have some truth), so why are we trusting the average idiot with the vote again?
Click to expand...

Historically, when it is done the other way of only allowing the special people vote, everybody except the very powerful gets screwed.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
What Craig means is that you aren't agreeing with him. It's not possible that people can make up their minds looking at Newt's record. It's not possible for them to question his Moon Base ideas. You must believe that money is the sole influence because he said it, you must believe it and that settles it.

Newt can't get elected. Romney has a chance.
Click to expand...

The funnier part is I actually agree with him LOL... I agree money is corrupting our political system and this Super PAC shit has got to go. Doesn't mean Newt wasn't going down either way. Craig this is why people say your bonkers... you're arguing with someone who agrees with you about the point you are trying to make.
 
Siddhartha said:
Historically, when it is done the other way of only allowing the special people vote, everybody except the very powerful gets screwed.
Click to expand...

Personally, I prefer the Churchill quote:

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”


Ain't that the truth!
 
Dulanic said:
The funnier part is I actually agree with him LOL... I agree money is corrupting our political system and this Super PAC shit has got to go. Doesn't mean Newt wasn't going down either way. Craig this is why people say your bonkers... you're arguing with someone who agrees with you about the point you are trying to make.
Click to expand...

Money in politics has a huge influence without doubt but I can't think of who doesn't understand that basic fact. The issue I have in this case is that Republicans are being painted as two dimensional automatons which are obliged to conform to his preconceptions, yet as the AP article I linked to points out, his reasoning fails. Further, if he took the time to read on other forums which tend to voice opinions from the further right he'd find that Newt is disliked for several reasons. That would involve exposure to that which cannot be and so we have this "analysis". The perverse aspect of this is that this is the exact same thought process the Bush administration used with Iraq. Dissenting opinions need not apply.
 
Look at what Romney faces as an opposition. Romney may look marginally better than Newt, Santorum, or Ron Paul, but I don't think a single one is electable. Worse yet, Romney faces high negatives within the GOP.

But after Florida, I expect we may all see I growing anyone but Romney movement from inside the GOP. With a holy grail mission to deadlock the 2012 convention.
 
Lemon law said:
Look at what Romney faces as an opposition. Romney may look marginally better than Newt, Santorum, or Ron Paul, but I don't think a single one is electable. Worse yet, Romney faces high negatives within the GOP.

But after Florida, I expect we may all see I growing anyone but Romney movement from inside the GOP. With a holy grail mission to deadlock the 2012 convention.
Click to expand...

Not a chance. Romney will continue to win on his perceived electability. He'll still have to battle Newt for a bit but given a choice between Obama and Romney the vast majority of reps will get behind him and push, grandstanding notwithstanding.
 
Craig234 said:
-snip-
That advertising has the dominant effect on who wins
Click to expand...

Fail.

Romney had more money in the SC primary, yet lost. That's because Newt scored big in the SC debates.

Newt flubbed the FL debate. Newt had just received a new influx of millions of $'s yet Romney won.

This is where most people reasonably draw the conclusion that debate performances are more important than money. Yet, not you.

If you waited to make this point later when we aren't having debates your point would at least be defensible.

Fern
 
Fern said:
Fail.
Click to expand...

You're just obnoxious. I stopped reading at the next sentence because of that.

Rather than waste my time talking to someone who is so obnoxious about the difference between '100% guarantee every election' and 'dominant effect', just go away.

Really not interested in what you have to say. I'd say improve, but why bother.
 
davmat787 said:
Actually Obama is the #1 money guy, having raised over double what Romney's campaign has to work with. Does this induce double the rage for you? Or is this fact different?
Click to expand...


Really - Obama is the biggest spender running in the Republican primary?

He was the #1 money guy in the 2008 general - and he won. You're re-making my point.

I guess you're so determined to ignore the issue and try to make some gotcha point you are too excited to the read the OP - I've said it more strongly previously:

"Much of this is the case with Democrats as well, they are just more disliking it but they do it as they have to to win as well. Obama has huge donations."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top