Republican Primary

  • Thread starter Thread starter ringil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Luigi_Daniele said:
Won’t happen. A candidate can’t be in all the states at once. Maybe voting in “waves” (by region?)?

And they need to stop allowing voting by persons not registered as Republicans.
Click to expand...
I agree on the second point, and most of the first point. I think they should actually select 3-5 “waves” and populate them by lottery. It’s already bad enough that in the general election exit-polling data from media sources about what goes on in New England can influence voter turn-out in the Southwest and Northwest.

That’d actually be pretty awesome if they used the lottery machine like the NBA draft and had is live on CSPAN or something. Every state could have its flag on a draft lottery ball bouncing around in one of those machines.
  • Marty Lund
 
Corki said:
That something that happened in 2005 is not really Catholic “News”.
Click to expand...
This may be true,however,I for one,and probably the electorate as a whole have become somewhat jaded towards politicians who say something ,primarily for political expediency.Not really intending to follow through.I suspect this is the case with people not fully being on board withRomney.Add to that,last time around, we were stuck with McCain,because the powers that be in Republician establishment deemed him to be the most electable.I held my nose and voted for him.I would rather not have to do that this time around.havingbsaid that,if I do have to hold my nose,I will:)
 
Corki said:
That something that happened in 2005 is not really Catholic “News”.
Click to expand...
Rush Limbaugh has apparently brought it up in light of the current election, thus making it “new news” again.

Everything old is news again! 😛

~Liza
 
I think that Obama is manipulating this entire issue with the HHS decree last week and to discredit Romney. Let us never forget that Obama is the one that needs to be defeated. That Obama voted against a law that prevented infanticide. That Obama is the one that said, “I don’t want my daughter burdened with a baby”.

Anyone but Obama. Romney has made his position very well known and his 2005 position is not his position now.
 
CMatt25 said:
Were you watching CNN when they talked about Huckabee winning some states 4 yrs ago after McCain basically wrapped up the nomination in FL that yr?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I’m not going to let that fly without seriuosly challenging you on that, I happen to study political science…

Anyways, Mitt Romney is shaping up to be a MUCH weaker “front runner” than John McCain. I’m pretty sure John McCain didn’t lose 3 out of 3 states on the same night last time around. Factually, he lost 19 states and won 31. So far Mitt Romney has won 3 out of 8. Extrapolate that out, at this rate, Mitt will win only 18 states total (at this rate).

But, let’s consider that Mitt doesn’t have a prayer in: GA, AL, TN, MS, LA, AK, or KY. That’s 7 Southern states I’m saying he’ll lose. Then, he’s got a very slim chance in NC, TX, and WV. Now we’re up to 10, not including the 5 he’s already lost.

Then, you gotta factor that Santorum has 3 weeks to build a campaign to compete in the states coming up. Gingrich will also be competing in the states coming up. So will Ron Paul.
Mitt Romney needs all of the Northeastern moderate Republican delegates he can get. Well, it looks like Ron Paul is going to take a whole lot of them away in the state of Maine.

Bottom line: 75% of Republicans still hate Mitt Romney. Depending on the momentum and the situation of the race, they’ll vote for either Santorum or Gingrich.

Romney’s campaign apparently wasn’t having any interaction with voters. Romney would go to a rally, read prepared remarks (basically put on a prepared show of how inevitable he was, and leave). Rick Santorum would take questions from the audience for sometimes an hour and a half. And, his answers apparently were very good.

It looks like the case that, “You should vote for me because I have the most money and organization, which means I’m the most electable, which means I’m inevitable” isn’t a very good message for WINNING.

If Mitt doesn’t win BOTH Arizona and Michigan before Super Tuesday… then on Super Tuesday I predict he will lose at least half of the Super Tuesday states.
 
Sabda said:
Yep, Florida is in trouble. Romney won’t be getting all the delegates from them. Honestly, they need to just set A date like the general election and have all the states vote on that date. They would be done with all this and you wouldn’t have to worry about states violating rules like this. It’s ridiculous that it gets spread out for almost half a year and ends up hurting states that actually try to play by the rules.
Click to expand...
Florida is the ONLY state Mitt Romney made a compelling win in.

He won New Hampshire because he’s from the neighboring state Massachusetts (most of the New Hampshire population is really just the suburbs of Boston). And, he’s a moderate, like most NH Republicans are.

He won Nevada because 25% of caucus goers were Mormons. Romney won 95% of their support.
Well, it looks like there aren’t enough Mormons in Colorado for him to win.

Point is, Mitt Romney was always going to win NH, and NV because he’s a Massachusetts Moderate who is a Mormon. (Triple M 😃 LOL). But seriously, he didn’t have to persuade them at all… he was always going to win those 2 states.

Colorado was a state Romney had to win by campaigning and ACTUALLY CONVINCING PPL. looks like Santorum convinced them instead
 
Santorum may turn out to the the Catholic’s best friend. Romney and Obama sure have proved to be of little respect for Catholic traditions and beliefs.

What justification can there be a vote for Romney or Obama for Catholics but a large portion still will do that??
 
TraditonRules said:
I don’t know for sure but I believe Santorum is Protestant Christian, ironically he may turn out to the the Catholics best friend. Romney and Obama sure have proved to be of lttle respect for Catholic traditions and beliefs.
Click to expand...
Huh? Santourm is 100% Catholic.
 
Corki said:
That something that happened in 2005 is not really Catholic “News”.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn’t someone’s views on human life who might be President next year, who is all over the news, not concern Catholics? It happened in 2005, but how many people payed attention to Mitt back then outside of his state?
 
garn9173 said:
Huh? Santourm is 100% Catholic.
Click to expand...
He’s a member of the Knights of Columbus, attends the Extraordinary Form Mass regularly, and was awarded knighthood in the Order of Malta by the Vatican, for goodness sake!
  • Marty Lund
 
mlund said:
He’s a member of the Knights of Columbus, attends the Extraordinary Form Mass regularly, and was awarded knighthood in the Order of Malta by the Vatican, for goodness sake!
  • Marty Lund
Click to expand...
Being a good Catholic doesn’t equate to being a good President.
 
Semper_Zelare said:
Santorum has 3 weeks to build a campaign to compete in the states coming up. Gingrich will also be competing in the states coming up. So will Ron Paul.
Mitt Romney needs all of the Northeastern moderate Republican delegates he can get. Well, it looks like Ron Paul is going to take a whole lot of them away in the state of Maine.

Bottom line: 75% of Republicans still hate Mitt Romney. Depending on the momentum and the situation of the race, they’ll vote for either Santorum or Gingrich.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The longer the other 3 compete and divide votes, it helps Romney. But I have little doubt 75% of Republicans are not in love with Romney. Turnout in the primary season hasn’t actually been going thru the roof. So I’m beginning to wonder how in love the voters are with any of them.
 
As a Romney supporter, I have to say I am being swayed towards Santorum. I hope he can gain more momentum and win a big contest and/or show well on Super Tuesday. I may even vote for him in my state’s caucus. He’s been less negative, doesnt have Gingrich’s baggage, and doesn’t have the “elitist,” “moderate/liberal” labels being placed on him as Romney does.

Two things I know for certain. It is going to be an interesting nomination - still a chance of a brokered convention? And, the general election is going to be tough. I hope the party can unify at the convention and win this thing!
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Being a good Catholic doesn’t equate to being a good President.
Click to expand...
Some things on here make me scratch my head in puzzlement, Being a good Catholic would provide essential foundation of a good leader. Case in point with Obama we have a pro abortion and homosexual agenda.
 
DexUK said:
If he’s a good Catholic, he won’t be a bad President.

And that, albeit I’m speaking from a different continent, has to be an improvement!
Click to expand...
All things considered, my grandmother would be an improvement over the current. But she’s a good Catholic, so I get your point.
 
rlg94086 said:
As a Romney supporter, I have to say I am being swayed towards Santorum. I hope he can gain more momentum and win a big contest and/or show well on Super Tuesday. I may even vote for him in my state’s caucus. He’s been less negative, doesnt have Gingrich’s baggage, and doesn’t have the “elitist,” “moderate/liberal” labels being placed on him as Romney does.

Two things I know for certain. It is going to be an interesting nomination - still a chance of a brokered convention? And, the general election is going to be tough. I hope the party can unify at the convention and win this thing!
Click to expand...
As a Ron Paul supporter I could say much the same thing. I will probably continue to support Dr. Paul throughout the primary process (assuming he’s still in it come May, when NC votes :doh2: ), but if Santorum got the nomination, it might be my one and only chance to vote for a Catholic politician who actually seems to follow Church teaching! 🙂
 
TraditonRules said:
Some things on here make me scratch my head in puzzlement, Being a good Catholic would provide essential foundation of a good leader. Case in point with Obama we have a pro abortion and homosexual agenda.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say it’s essential exactly. It’s more than possible to be an ethical and responsible leader without being a catholic. Some would argue it’s even easier to be a good leader because you’re making decisions based on the well-being of all the people, not just one minority demographic. To be honest I think it’s inconsiderate of us to expect a leader to make decisions based on a dogma that the majority of Americans don’t subscribe to. That’s why separation of church and state is one of the founding cornerstones of the country. Look at what the theistic government has done to Iran. Christians who live in Iran are second class citizens. Having a catholic leader with a catholic agenda would make non-catholics feel like second class citizens in their own country. That’s why we (are supposed) to have a secular government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top