Is The GOP Race Over?

Oh come on. Just how easy would it be for the Obama camp to turn his past, especially with all this newsletter nonsense, into something to attack. And with Obama being black? He'll be torn apart on no real grounds and the media/populace will eat it up. This is all ignoring his foreign policy, which is isanely easily to misstate and twist into a ton of anti-democracy, anti-American, pro-Iranian horsesh*t. The GOP will not pick Ron Paul and the GOP will lose the general election. 

Edited by stonebeard - January 01 2012 at 23:26

I think you both overestimate the American people's lust for war.  Anyway, it's just a cold political realization that Romney cannot win without the Ron Paul base coming out for him, which they won't.  Also, what's Mitt offering as a national candidate other than "I'm sort of not Obama, maybe"?  If Romney is the GOP nominee there will be 4 more years of Obama (which, incidentally, is 4 more years of W) and I'd be willing to put good money on that.  Ron Paul is infinintely more electible in a general election than in the republican primary because he is the only one that can honestly make an issue of the country's insane foreign policy, the loss of civil liberties (Patriot Act, NDAA, etc), and Obamacare (which is Romneycare, after all).  You can disagree but Romney will go down as just another Bob Dole or John Kerry.

If slarti ends up voting for Obama instead of just staying home or writing in a candidate then I think I win the "just a partisan hack" argument of a couple months back.   Though, he might be worried if he doesn't vote George W Obama then he'll end up in GITMO.

manofmystery wrote: If slarti ends up voting for Obama instead of just staying home or writing in a candidate then I think I win the "just a partisan hack" argument of a couple months back.   Though, he might be worried if he doesn't vote George W Obama then he'll end up in GITMO.

It's a foregone conclusion that Obama will not get Georgia's electoral votes no matter what he does before the election.  I don't sit out elections.  You do not win the argument even if I don't sit it out or write in another candidate.

I'm going to go Romney, Paul, Santorum, Newt on the basis of nothing at whatsoever.

OK, I'm going to attempt some reasoning behind this order.  Romney 1 because he's probably got the best shot a knocking Obama off.  Being a chameleon has its advantages and if Iowan's still fancy themselves king makers they will want to go practical.  Paul as 2 because he's taken foreign policy stands that aren't popular.  Santorum 3 because it's time for his 15 minutes of fame in this race.  Gingrich 4 because he's had his 15 and as people got to know him better, they realize that he isn't as good as the think he is.  So I give a 50-50 to Paul and Romney for the top slot just because they've been holding steady in the polling for the most part.


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 02 2012 at 10:40

manofmystery wrote:   Sidestepped the point like a true politician .  Just trying to see if I could get you to grow a spine instead of voting for a Bush in Dems clothing.

Perhaps I should consider a career change.

be glad this don't happens in US


Edited by aginor - January 02 2012 at 12:35

JJLehto wrote: Not that is has to do with the race but really, how much can you talk about how they all suck and which one is gunna lose to Obama? Republicans including the governor of my state like to talk a big game about cutting taxes and taxes, taxes, taxes. Then he oks a 50% hike for the tolls. lovely

 

^ You forgot to include Democrats.  Neither help anyone without it being at the expense of somebody else.

This should be interesting.  The article says they aren't as socially conservative as I had assumed and it's also open to democrats.
Just Who Is An Iowa Caucusgoer?


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 02 2012 at 14:59