Jump to content


Photo

What Happens if Romney Doesn't Win in Michigan?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
28 replies to this topic

#1 JustDan

JustDan

    Member

  • Members
  • 14,896 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 06:22 PM

Can he still secure the nomination? I know Super Tuesday's still ahead but, GOP pundits are saying if he loses MI, he's got big problems.

#2 cheddarmustard

cheddarmustard

    Member

  • Members
  • 18,566 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 06:51 PM

In the words of Rocco Lampone, "difficult, not impossible."

#3 Flea

Flea

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,500 posts

Posted 25 February 2012 - 01:47 AM

If Romney loses MI, TV gets much more fun for the next few weeks.

#4 Earthslayer

Earthslayer

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,212 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 11:21 PM

Santorum had Michigan in his grasp to win last week. However over the last several days he's been his own worst enemy by spewing too much hardline, literalist, Roman Catholic dogma. It appears to me his frontrunner status got to his head.

Last week I thought he'd win Michigan by 8% - now I expect he'll lose it by 8%.

#5 skyjocky

skyjocky

    Member

  • Members
  • 33,840 posts

Posted 26 February 2012 - 11:29 PM

I saw him on the talking head shows this morning and he is, indeed, his own worst enemy. He is a loon and very, very frightening.

Since the New Deal, republicans have been on the wrong side of every issue of concern to ordinary Americans; Social Security, the war in Vietnam, equal rights, civil liberties, church-state separation, consumer issues, public education, reproductive freedom, national health care, labor issues, campaign-finance reform, the environment and tax fairness. No political party could remain so consistently wrong by accident. The only rational conclusion is that, despite their cynical "family values" propaganda, the republican party is a criminal conspiracy to betray the interests of the American people in favor of plutocratic and corporate interests, and absolutist religious groups.

 

"These are low-functioning sociopaths who defecate platitudes like "Freedom", "America", "Family", "Patriot", and "Values" with the speed and dispersal of diarrhea... they do so without thought, any genuine feeling invested or understanding of the sacrosanct concepts in question! They are the enemy of us all! They are the enemy within! They are the dry rot in the floorboards of our civilization! They are the cancer metastasizing through the body-politic! They are collectively a dangerous unknowing child with a gun now found and they will wound us terribly!" 

 

As long as baggers, bigots and bible thumpers control the repub party, they are doomed to go the way of the Dodo.

 

RFH-cropped-header.jpg

 


#6 Earthslayer

Earthslayer

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,212 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 02:35 PM

Santorum had Michigan in his grasp to win last week. However over the last several days he's been his own worst enemy by spewing too much hardline, literalist, Roman Catholic dogma. It appears to me his frontrunner status got to his head.

Last week I thought he'd win Michigan by 8% - now I expect he'll lose it by 8%.

---------------

So, with 99%+ of the votes counted Santorum loses Michigan...but loses only by 3% (30,000 votes). It looks like Santorum actually won more counties statewide than Romney did, so Santorum could end up winning the same or even more state delegates than Romney. And it would seem that the two large population semi-urban counties outside Detriot, the counties where Romney actually grew up, went heavily for Romney and they were essentially the difference in this race.

If I was a Santorum stratagist I'd be pissed off at him for losing Michigan.. :unsure: ...on the other hand the Santorum camp has got to feel confident he can win Ohio next week if he stops issuing these religious Fatwahs. Catholic Santorum lost the Catholic vote in Michigan to Morman Romney... :blink: ....that should tell Santorum all he needs to know.



#7 JimCT

JimCT

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,424 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 02:51 PM


Santorum had Michigan in his grasp to win last week. However over the last several days he's been his own worst enemy by spewing too much hardline, literalist, Roman Catholic dogma. It appears to me his frontrunner status got to his head.

Last week I thought he'd win Michigan by 8% - now I expect he'll lose it by 8%.

---------------

So, with 99%+ of the votes counted Santorum loses Michigan...but loses only by 3% (30,000 votes). It looks like Santorum actually won more counties statewide than Romney did, so Santorum could end up winning the same or even more state delegates than Romney. And it would seem that the two large population semi-urban counties outside Detriot, the counties where Romney actually grew up, went heavily for Romney and they were essentially the difference in this race.

If I was a Santorum stratagist I'd be pissed off at him for losing Michigan.. :unsure: ...on the other hand the Santorum camp has got to feel confident he can win Ohio next week if he stops issuing these religious Fatwahs. Catholic Santorum lost the Catholic vote in Michigan to Morman Romney... :blink: ....that should tell Santorum all he needs to know.


And reports this morning are that ~9% of votes cast in this OPEN primary were by Democrats voting for Santorum, to "sew mischief"

http://www.cnn.com/v...ef-michigan.cnn

Raises an interesting question: should primaries be open like this?

In honor of Milton Friedman's birthday

 

 ”Fundamentally, there are only two ways of co-ordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion—the technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state. The other is voluntary co-operation of individuals—the technique of the market place.”

 

”Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task [protects individuals against coercion] so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”

 

”a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom.”

 

”These then are the basic roles of government in a free society: to provide a means whereby we can modify the rules, to mediate differences among us on the meaning of the rules, and to enforce compliance with the rules on the part of those few who would otherwise not play the game.”


#8 Skin2Skin

Skin2Skin

    Member

  • Members
  • 45,142 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 03:52 PM

It is my understanding that 10% of the vote from the other side of the aisle is typical in open registration when the party candidate is running unopposed.

Whether one is sowing mischief or sincerely expressing who he would like the opposing candidate would be, it's nice to have a vote in the primaries--if you care enough to vote.

I am not sure how different it is when Arlen Spector, a Republican, changed parties because he couldn't win a Republican primary in PA...and he immediately became the Democratic machine's choice.




"This man owns other people's music. Like, goes to the store, puts their songs in his cart, walks up to the cashier and slams his money on the counter." -- Bill Pellegrino

 

‘The opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. Certainty is missing the point entirely. Faith includes noticing the mess, the emptiness and discomfort, and letting it be there until some light returns.’ -- Anne Lamott

 

Man, the dope's that there's still hope.

 

BUT...nobody wins unless everybody wins.

 

 


#9 Skin2Skin

Skin2Skin

    Member

  • Members
  • 45,142 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 04:00 PM

Last response.

"This man owns other people's music. Like, goes to the store, puts their songs in his cart, walks up to the cashier and slams his money on the counter." -- Bill Pellegrino

 

‘The opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. Certainty is missing the point entirely. Faith includes noticing the mess, the emptiness and discomfort, and letting it be there until some light returns.’ -- Anne Lamott

 

Man, the dope's that there's still hope.

 

BUT...nobody wins unless everybody wins.

 

 


#10 JimCT

JimCT

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,424 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 04:19 PM

It is my understanding that 10% of the vote from the other side of the aisle is typical in open registration when the party candidate is running unopposed.

Whether one is sowing mischief or sincerely expressing who he would like the opposing candidate would be, it's nice to have a vote in the primaries--if you care enough to vote.

I am not sure how different it is when Arlen Spector, a Republican, changed parties because he couldn't win a Republican primary in PA...and he immediately became the Democratic machine's choice.


If the purpose of a primary is to determine who the candidate should be to represent some spectrum of the voting populace then allowing "mischief" votes subverts that process. Why not allow those who care to select who they want, and then do battle in the general election?

Of course, if you subscribe to the "win at any cost", "do anything to win" philosophy you reap what you sew. But then NEVER again chastise ANYONE who exploits any loophole, takes any opportunity, uses any trick, to "win". Is that what you really want?

In honor of Milton Friedman's birthday

 

 ”Fundamentally, there are only two ways of co-ordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion—the technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state. The other is voluntary co-operation of individuals—the technique of the market place.”

 

”Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task [protects individuals against coercion] so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”

 

”a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom.”

 

”These then are the basic roles of government in a free society: to provide a means whereby we can modify the rules, to mediate differences among us on the meaning of the rules, and to enforce compliance with the rules on the part of those few who would otherwise not play the game.”


#11 Skin2Skin

Skin2Skin

    Member

  • Members
  • 45,142 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 04:46 PM


It is my understanding that 10% of the vote from the other side of the aisle is typical in open registration when the party candidate is running unopposed.

Whether one is sowing mischief or sincerely expressing who he would like the opposing candidate would be, it's nice to have a vote in the primaries--if you care enough to vote.

I am not sure how different it is when Arlen Spector, a Republican, changed parties because he couldn't win a Republican primary in PA...and he immediately became the Democratic machine's choice.


If the purpose of a primary is to determine who the candidate should be to represent some spectrum of the voting populace then allowing "mischief" votes subverts that process. Why not allow those who care to select who they want, and then do battle in the general election?

Of course, if you subscribe to the "win at any cost", "do anything to win" philosophy you reap what you sew. But then NEVER again chastise ANYONE who exploits any loophole, takes any opportunity, uses any trick, to "win". Is that what you really want?


Jim...it is not SEW, it is sow. So there. :)

I'm not a States rights kinda gal. I think things should be more uniform, not less. :)

I certainly don't subscribe to the "win at any cost" mentality that Mitt Romney so relished in the video I provided.

It's not "mischief" to legally vote any way you want to vote--is it?

I am playing devil's advocate here--I don't support open primaries. But if they exist and one side takes advantage of them--there should be no complaints if the other side does.

"This man owns other people's music. Like, goes to the store, puts their songs in his cart, walks up to the cashier and slams his money on the counter." -- Bill Pellegrino

 

‘The opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. Certainty is missing the point entirely. Faith includes noticing the mess, the emptiness and discomfort, and letting it be there until some light returns.’ -- Anne Lamott

 

Man, the dope's that there's still hope.

 

BUT...nobody wins unless everybody wins.

 

 


#12 JustDan

JustDan

    Member

  • Members
  • 14,896 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 04:47 PM

Although Romney pulled it out, I still dont see this as a slam dunk for him. It was a tepid victory to say the least. The guy's credibility problem with the GOP base is not going to go away. If he doesn't close the deal on Super Tuesday, not only is he in trouble, the entire party's in trouble.

#13 Skin2Skin

Skin2Skin

    Member

  • Members
  • 45,142 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 04:54 PM

Romney spent twice the amount Santorum did for this Michigan victory. Them's just the facts...again.

"This man owns other people's music. Like, goes to the store, puts their songs in his cart, walks up to the cashier and slams his money on the counter." -- Bill Pellegrino

 

‘The opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. Certainty is missing the point entirely. Faith includes noticing the mess, the emptiness and discomfort, and letting it be there until some light returns.’ -- Anne Lamott

 

Man, the dope's that there's still hope.

 

BUT...nobody wins unless everybody wins.

 

 


#14 skyjocky

skyjocky

    Member

  • Members
  • 33,840 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 05:05 PM

Last response.


I'm still laughing! The rnc is soooooooooo blatantly obvious with their desperate dirty tactics and control of faux spews.

Laser eyes! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Since the New Deal, republicans have been on the wrong side of every issue of concern to ordinary Americans; Social Security, the war in Vietnam, equal rights, civil liberties, church-state separation, consumer issues, public education, reproductive freedom, national health care, labor issues, campaign-finance reform, the environment and tax fairness. No political party could remain so consistently wrong by accident. The only rational conclusion is that, despite their cynical "family values" propaganda, the republican party is a criminal conspiracy to betray the interests of the American people in favor of plutocratic and corporate interests, and absolutist religious groups.

 

"These are low-functioning sociopaths who defecate platitudes like "Freedom", "America", "Family", "Patriot", and "Values" with the speed and dispersal of diarrhea... they do so without thought, any genuine feeling invested or understanding of the sacrosanct concepts in question! They are the enemy of us all! They are the enemy within! They are the dry rot in the floorboards of our civilization! They are the cancer metastasizing through the body-politic! They are collectively a dangerous unknowing child with a gun now found and they will wound us terribly!" 

 

As long as baggers, bigots and bible thumpers control the repub party, they are doomed to go the way of the Dodo.

 

RFH-cropped-header.jpg

 


#15 Robwarrior

Robwarrior

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,112 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 06:35 PM

It's funny how just by winning by a hair, the spin on the race will take on a different tone. Barely winning Michigan does nothing to change the underlying weaknesses of Mitt Romney. This will continue to be a long and ugly nominating process. The fact that Santorum was still close after he did everything he could to scare people away speaks volumes. The anti Romney sentiment is cementing and appears to be impregnable (santorum would love that word) for a huge portion of the GOP base.

As for open primaries, I do not believe in them. I have always felt, that if you want to have a say in who a political party runs for office, you should join the party. I made my bones working campaigns in New York where primaries are not open. If they were (particularly on the local level), you would have huge waves of interference and an even worse system than we have already. I can only imagine what we would have done (it would have been fun) to help get the nutjob candidates on the other side their own parties nomination.
"I'll be there on time and I'll pay the cost"

#16 Skin2Skin

Skin2Skin

    Member

  • Members
  • 45,142 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 09:39 PM

I agree with the above post :)

I would add that these results don't just tell us a lot about Romney's weakness, but about the voting public (as opposed to the general public) and how extremely to the right the GOP has become. It's not just one state--we've seen it again and again now. It is very scary to me. Pat Toomey now represents my state and the current Governor of my state is taking away women's rights at a rapid pace. If Democrats don't realize they have to galvanize their side into voting (because Lord knows that's a strenuous activity--yes, I am being sarcastic)--we are screwed.

And that's everyone...assuming you are either female or involved with a female who has been on birth control at one point in her life (like the other 99% of US women).

"This man owns other people's music. Like, goes to the store, puts their songs in his cart, walks up to the cashier and slams his money on the counter." -- Bill Pellegrino

 

‘The opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. Certainty is missing the point entirely. Faith includes noticing the mess, the emptiness and discomfort, and letting it be there until some light returns.’ -- Anne Lamott

 

Man, the dope's that there's still hope.

 

BUT...nobody wins unless everybody wins.

 

 


#17 Patched Tube

Patched Tube

    Member

  • Members
  • 12,827 posts

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:37 PM

It's funny how just by winning by a hair, the spin on the race will take on a different tone. Barely winning Michigan does nothing to change the underlying weaknesses of Mitt Romney. This will continue to be a long and ugly nominating process. The fact that Santorum was still close after he did everything he could to scare people away speaks volumes. The anti Romney sentiment is cementing and appears to be impregnable (santorum would love that word) for a huge portion of the GOP base.

As for open primaries, I do not believe in them. I have always felt, that if you want to have a say in who a political party runs for office, you should join the party. I made my bones working campaigns in New York where primaries are not open. If they were (particularly on the local level), you would have huge waves of interference and an even worse system than we have already. I can only imagine what we would have done (it would have been fun) to help get the nutjob candidates on the other side their own parties nomination.


I used to think in an ideal world every voter would be able to have a voice in every parties selection of candidates... the hope being that this would force both parties toward the center. The problem with this idea is that primaries don't really attract the average voter. So you are right... in an open primary the chances for mischief are simply too high. Worse case scenario is an election where you get something like "Kasich vs Santorum". Regradless of how one would vote I think most people would agree that the US should, and needs, to do better.
If the choice is Bud or Coors, I'll have a Coke.

"And I am tired of being asked to pretend stupid is a virtue."

#18 Welby

Welby

    Member

  • Members
  • 14,105 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:37 AM

The election isnt about voting for Romney. Its about how many vote AGAINST the incumbent. You could have a dogs head on a spike up there and it wouldnt matter. Watch the DJI ticker and the gas pumps...thats where your winner will be determined.
Slip Mahoney: I'm a victim of my own verbacity, and I don't even know what that is.

#19 cheddarmustard

cheddarmustard

    Member

  • Members
  • 18,566 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:57 AM

Seriously... Obama was losing to Hillary by convincing margins in April and May four years ago while he was clearly the presumptive nominee It's still only February, and Romney is being crucified in some parts for not winning by a greater margin.

For all of the arguments that GOP voters want someone else, one can also point out that he has beaten back every "anti-Romney" challenger that he's faced.

#20 Robwarrior

Robwarrior

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,112 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 01:10 AM

The election isnt about voting for Romney. Its about how many vote AGAINST the incumbent. You could have a dogs head on a spike up there and it wouldnt matter. Watch the DJI ticker and the gas pumps...thats where your winner will be determined.


Independents have to decide whether to vote against the incumbent or not. The economic data will certainly factor into their decision, but they also need to have what they consider a reasonable alternative. Since the voters have a very unfavorable view of Washington Republicans, (75% of Americans disapprove of the way congressional Republicans are performing) it complicates the equation. Mitt Romney is not showing himself as the kind of leader who can inspire the Republican congress to do better (his own party doesn't even like him). So Obama has that card to play with as well. This election is going to be very complex and break a lot of the old axioms.
"I'll be there on time and I'll pay the cost"

#21 Welby

Welby

    Member

  • Members
  • 14,105 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 01:35 AM

I am a moderate republican. I am not even sure why I am classed as a republican. I am Pro Choice, believe in Same Sex Marriage , Leagalizing all drugs, that there is a great economic divide evolving...blah, blah blah...I would have voted for BO in 2008, but I thought he was selling snake oil. This term has convinced me. I could care less who was the candidate against him this time around...thats who I am voting for...and I bet there are plenty like me.
Slip Mahoney: I'm a victim of my own verbacity, and I don't even know what that is.

#22 MartyR

MartyR

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,218 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 01:48 AM

I am a moderate republican. I am not even sure why I am classed as a republican. I am Pro Choice, believe in Same Sex Marriage , Leagalizing all drugs, that there is a great economic divide evolving...blah, blah blah...I would have voted for BO in 2008, but I thought he was selling snake oil. This term has convinced me. I could care less who was the candidate against him this time around...thats who I am voting for...and I bet there are plenty like me.


Unfortunately your party has abandoned you. Best thing to happen would be an Obama landslide that would allow reasoning and common sense back into the GOP. Like what happened after Goldwater.

#23 Welby

Welby

    Member

  • Members
  • 14,105 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:01 AM

yeah..but ya know...I just dont like the fucking guy. So I am not only going to not vote FOR him, I am going to vote against him.
I think a lot of that is going to happen...at worst it makes the race close...at best...for me...he doesnt get in again and continue his destruction of America.
Slip Mahoney: I'm a victim of my own verbacity, and I don't even know what that is.

#24 Robwarrior

Robwarrior

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,112 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:53 AM

yeah..but ya know...I just dont like the fucking guy. So I am not only going to not vote FOR him, I am going to vote against him.
I think a lot of that is going to happen...at worst it makes the race close...at best...for me...he doesnt get in again and continue his destruction of America.



I am a moderate Dem..and did not vote for Obama in 2008. I too thought he was selling snake oil. And if the Dems had control of congress, I would vote him out. But I am not comfortable with a Romney administration and total Republican control of the hill, so I am going to bite the bullet and vote to keep the government divided and pray these morons compromise enough to get a few things done over the next four years.
"I'll be there on time and I'll pay the cost"

#25 bassplayer617

bassplayer617

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,479 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 03:05 AM

What the American people, and perhaps a few of you, don't realize is that the problem is Congress. With the Repubs in charge, it doesn't matter if Obama is re-elected. HOWEVER, if a Republican President is elected, this country is doomed, as they want to revert us to a past that never existed in the first place.