Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Mitt Romney wins N.H.; Rivals Split Vote

1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 11:53:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Elephant Watcher reports:

"Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire Primary on Tuesday, a result which should come as no surprise. With 81% reporting, Romney won with 38%. Ron Paul came second, losing by about 15 points. Romney's margin of victory, though large, was less than many polls had suggested it could have been. The more important story is how Romney's main rivals for the nomination--Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum--will be weakened by the result. The following is the result, as of this posting, and an analysis of how the result will influence the race going forward:

New Hampshire Primary (81% reporting)
Romney -- 38%
Paul -- 23%
Huntsman -- 17%
Gingrich -- 10%
Santorum -- 10%
Perry -- 1%

Yesterday, Elephant Watcher predicted that if Romney finished in the 30s, it would be treated as an underwhelming victory, particularly if second-place was not far behind. After all, winning by 15 points is not a great performance when so many polls had indicated a win by 20 points or more. Some pundits will claim the result shows weakness on Romney's part, offering some version of "This is one of Romney's best states, he's been campaigning here all year (or for the past five years) and only beat his 2008 performance by a handful of points. Romney can't close the deal. He is a weak frontrunner. The voters want this thing to continue." Other pundits will also remark on Jon Huntsman's third-place finish, speculating on whether he can be yet another candidate to surge.

Although it's true that Romney would have preferred a bigger margin of victory, it's important to view the race in its proper context: Romney isn't running against himself or his poll numbers; he's running against Gingrich and Santorum.

From that perspective, Romney had a very good result. Romney's biggest fear is that either Gingrich or Santorum will beat the other convincingly, become the chief Anti-Romney, and coalesce all of the Anti-Romney vote. Therefore, Romney's best scenario was for Gingrich and Santorum to finish well behind himself, and as close to each other as possible. Gingrich and Santorum would then continue to split the Anti-Romney vote. New Hampshire voters gave Romney his wish: Gingrich and Santorum virtually tied at 10% each, an embarrassing and ambiguous finish.

What about Paul and Huntsman? Neither man has a chance of winning the nomination. Paul is viewed by most Republicans as a "kook." Huntsman, who finished barely high enough to justify remaining in the race, entered the race by making the unspeakably poor decision of running to the left of Romney. He will be unable to play an Anti-Romney role, because the Anti-Romney vote is comprised of people who think Romney is too far to the left, not too far to the right. Thus, Paul and Huntsman served only to diminish Gingrich and Santorum more.

Now the race moves to South Carolina. The contests in Iowa and New Hampshire have done nothing to clarify the Anti-Romney situation. Rather than providing Romney with one strong opponent, he has two evenly-matched opponents who weaken each other. Romney's campaign has been professional and disciplined. More important, he continues to be lucky."

The current rankings of the candidates are 79% Romney, 12% Gingrich, and 9% Santorum with all others 0%.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2012 11:55:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My guess? We will talk of the first Mormon president in 2013.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 12:09:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/10/2012 11:55:10 PM, OberHerr wrote:
My guess? We will talk of the first Mormon president in 2013.

So you just ignore everything said in the OP?

That was an underwhelming win for Romney. They expected Romney to be in the 40s and Ron Paul to be in the teens. Ron Paul over-performed, Romney failed in his home-state and neighboring state.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 12:10:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 12:09:11 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/10/2012 11:55:10 PM, OberHerr wrote:
My guess? We will talk of the first Mormon president in 2013.

So you just ignore everything said in the OP?

That was an underwhelming win for Romney. They expected Romney to be in the 40s and Ron Paul to be in the teens. Ron Paul over-performed, Romney failed in his home-state and neighboring state.

That still doesn't escape the fact that Romney is the likeliest winner still.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 12:14:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 12:10:42 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:09:11 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/10/2012 11:55:10 PM, OberHerr wrote:
My guess? We will talk of the first Mormon president in 2013.

So you just ignore everything said in the OP?

That was an underwhelming win for Romney. They expected Romney to be in the 40s and Ron Paul to be in the teens. Ron Paul over-performed, Romney failed in his home-state and neighboring state.

That still doesn't escape the fact that Romney is the likeliest winner still.

Obama's likely to win the second term. Mitt Romney doesn't have anything else to offer that isn't Obama. Unemployment levels have been lowering.Slowly, but lowering nonetheless. I don't think anybody truly believes that Mitt Romney seriously wants to get rid of the debt burden either.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 12:20:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 12:14:12 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:10:42 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:09:11 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/10/2012 11:55:10 PM, OberHerr wrote:
My guess? We will talk of the first Mormon president in 2013.

So you just ignore everything said in the OP?

That was an underwhelming win for Romney. They expected Romney to be in the 40s and Ron Paul to be in the teens. Ron Paul over-performed, Romney failed in his home-state and neighboring state.

That still doesn't escape the fact that Romney is the likeliest winner still.

Obama's likely to win the second term. Mitt Romney doesn't have anything else to offer that isn't Obama. Unemployment levels have been lowering.Slowly, but lowering nonetheless. I don't think anybody truly believes that Mitt Romney seriously wants to get rid of the debt burden either.

Agreed. Sooooooo ironic that most of Romney's supporters support him for his electability against Obama, but Obama would almost certainly beat Romney.

Romney is boring and inspires passion in no one. He is a moderate and in no way truly conservative, which is tough in a GOP far more conservative than 4 years ago. He's arguably the most notorious flip-flopper in politics, certainly out of those running for President. He has that whole Romneycare stigma. He's taken many liberal positions in the past (pro-gun laws, pro-choice). The Tea Party doesn't care for him. As a result of all this, he has that "ceiling" of support among Republicans that would probably give Obama a victory.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 12:27:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 12:20:20 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:14:12 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:10:42 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:09:11 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/10/2012 11:55:10 PM, OberHerr wrote:
My guess? We will talk of the first Mormon president in 2013.

So you just ignore everything said in the OP?

That was an underwhelming win for Romney. They expected Romney to be in the 40s and Ron Paul to be in the teens. Ron Paul over-performed, Romney failed in his home-state and neighboring state.

That still doesn't escape the fact that Romney is the likeliest winner still.

Obama's likely to win the second term. Mitt Romney doesn't have anything else to offer that isn't Obama. Unemployment levels have been lowering.Slowly, but lowering nonetheless. I don't think anybody truly believes that Mitt Romney seriously wants to get rid of the debt burden either.

Agreed. Sooooooo ironic that most of Romney's supporters support him for his electability against Obama, but Obama would almost certainly beat Romney.

Romney is boring and inspires passion in no one. He is a moderate and in no way truly conservative, which is tough in a GOP far more conservative than 4 years ago. He's arguably the most notorious flip-flopper in politics, certainly out of those running for President. He has that whole Romneycare stigma. He's taken many liberal positions in the past (pro-gun laws, pro-choice). The Tea Party doesn't care for him. As a result of all this, he has that "ceiling" of support among Republicans that would probably give Obama a victory.

Since Obama is the incumbent, he has the advantage. Its a rare circumstance for a president to lose the 2nd term. George H.W. Bush lost under a rare circumstance of a third party candidate. However, that's not going to occur again, since its more difficult for third parties to enter the race.

Ronald Reagan was able to do it because he inspired change and a new direction against Jimmy Carter in which there were many problems occurring under his administration.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 12:37:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
couldn't make it to the polls, but I was going to vote Romney or Paul; most likely Romney.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 12:41:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 12:37:36 AM, DanT wrote:
couldn't make it to the polls, but I was going to vote Romney or Paul; most likely Romney.

pretty sharp difference between the two candidates.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 12:48:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 12:27:46 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:20:20 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:14:12 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:10:42 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:09:11 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/10/2012 11:55:10 PM, OberHerr wrote:
My guess? We will talk of the first Mormon president in 2013.

So you just ignore everything said in the OP?

That was an underwhelming win for Romney. They expected Romney to be in the 40s and Ron Paul to be in the teens. Ron Paul over-performed, Romney failed in his home-state and neighboring state.

That still doesn't escape the fact that Romney is the likeliest winner still.

Obama's likely to win the second term. Mitt Romney doesn't have anything else to offer that isn't Obama. Unemployment levels have been lowering.Slowly, but lowering nonetheless. I don't think anybody truly believes that Mitt Romney seriously wants to get rid of the debt burden either.

Agreed. Sooooooo ironic that most of Romney's supporters support him for his electability against Obama, but Obama would almost certainly beat Romney.

Romney is boring and inspires passion in no one. He is a moderate and in no way truly conservative, which is tough in a GOP far more conservative than 4 years ago. He's arguably the most notorious flip-flopper in politics, certainly out of those running for President. He has that whole Romneycare stigma. He's taken many liberal positions in the past (pro-gun laws, pro-choice). The Tea Party doesn't care for him. As a result of all this, he has that "ceiling" of support among Republicans that would probably give Obama a victory.

Since Obama is the incumbent, he has the advantage. Its a rare circumstance for a president to lose the 2nd term.

Since when? 17/43 = 40%
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 12:49:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 12:41:25 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:37:36 AM, DanT wrote:
couldn't make it to the polls, but I was going to vote Romney or Paul; most likely Romney.

pretty sharp difference between the two candidates.

Not really, Paul is Classic Liberal, and Romney is (Classic) Liberal-Conservative
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 12:52:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 12:49:36 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:41:25 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:37:36 AM, DanT wrote:
couldn't make it to the polls, but I was going to vote Romney or Paul; most likely Romney.

pretty sharp difference between the two candidates.

Not really, Paul is Classic Liberal, and Romney is (Classic) Liberal-Conservative

Ron Paul:
-legalizaiton of drugs
-gold standard and ending the fed
-downsizing government
-non-intervention policy

Mitt Romney:
-for none of that.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 12:53:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 12:49:36 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:41:25 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:37:36 AM, DanT wrote:
couldn't make it to the polls, but I was going to vote Romney or Paul; most likely Romney.

pretty sharp difference between the two candidates.

Not really, Paul is Classic Liberal, and Romney is (Classic) Liberal-Conservative

Utterly false. Paul may be Classical Liberal, but Romney is nothing of the sort.

Besides free market economics, how do Paul and Romney have anything in common at all?

Romney doesn't want to legalize all drugs, repeal the Patriot Act, end all wars, stop SOPA, legalize prostitution, abolish the Federal Reserve, abolish the IRS, abolish several Federal departments, stop foreign aid, restore sound money, or any of that.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 1:19:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 12:53:37 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:49:36 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:41:25 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:37:36 AM, DanT wrote:
couldn't make it to the polls, but I was going to vote Romney or Paul; most likely Romney.

pretty sharp difference between the two candidates.

Not really, Paul is Classic Liberal, and Romney is (Classic) Liberal-Conservative

Utterly false. Paul may be Classical Liberal, but Romney is nothing of the sort.

Besides free market economics, how do Paul and Romney have anything in common at all?

Romney doesn't want to legalize all drugs, repeal the Patriot Act, end all wars, stop SOPA, legalize prostitution, abolish the Federal Reserve, abolish the IRS, abolish several Federal departments, stop foreign aid, restore sound money, or any of that.

Card stacking, with no source
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 1:57:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 1:19:58 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:53:37 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Utterly false. Paul may be Classical Liberal, but Romney is nothing of the sort.

Besides free market economics, how do Paul and Romney have anything in common at all?

Romney doesn't want to legalize all drugs, repeal the Patriot Act, end all wars, stop SOPA, legalize prostitution, abolish the Federal Reserve, abolish the IRS, abolish several Federal departments, stop foreign aid, restore sound money, or any of that.

Card stacking, with no source

Uh, what? That's common knowledge, but if you really want a source:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

And if you really don't think Paul and Romney don't differ, just look at Ron Paul destroy Romney placing him as just another status quo candidate.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 2:40:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 1:57:58 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/11/2012 1:19:58 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:53:37 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Utterly false. Paul may be Classical Liberal, but Romney is nothing of the sort.

Besides free market economics, how do Paul and Romney have anything in common at all?

Romney doesn't want to legalize all drugs, repeal the Patriot Act, end all wars, stop SOPA, legalize prostitution, abolish the Federal Reserve, abolish the IRS, abolish several Federal departments, stop foreign aid, restore sound money, or any of that.

Card stacking, with no source

Uh, what? That's common knowledge, but if you really want a source:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

A source that's not wiki


And if you really don't think Paul and Romney don't differ, just look at Ron Paul destroy Romney placing him as just another status quo candidate.



Never said they didn't differ; don't put words in my mouth.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 6:35:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 12:09:11 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/10/2012 11:55:10 PM, OberHerr wrote:
My guess? We will talk of the first Mormon president in 2013.

So you just ignore everything said in the OP?

That was an underwhelming win for Romney. They expected Romney to be in the 40s and Ron Paul to be in the teens. Ron Paul over-performed, Romney failed in his home-state and neighboring state.

Actually Jon Hunstman over performed, not Paul.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 7:00:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Dan, you are seriously contesting that?!
If you really want the non-wiki sources (which is a bit silly - wikipedia is just as good as nearly anything else on the net in this situation)

Drugs;
http://www.cnn.com...

Increase military size;
http://mittromney.com...
Plus there is countless shizzle on his war support

Nothing on SOPA, but odds are he'd support it looking at his behaviour in the past.

Nothing on prostitution - safe to assume he is against legalizing it

As for abolishing the federal reserve it is so improbable (that it is his position) that the burden of proof would definitely fall on you to prove that he does support its abolition

You seem to know nothing about the guy, yet were willing to vote for him =/
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 7:48:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 7:00:13 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Dan, you are seriously contesting that?!
If you really want the non-wiki sources (which is a bit silly - wikipedia is just as good as nearly anything else on the net in this situation)

Drugs;
http://www.cnn.com...

Increase military size;
http://mittromney.com...
Plus there is countless shizzle on his war support

Nothing on SOPA, but odds are he'd support it looking at his behaviour in the past.

Nothing on prostitution - safe to assume he is against legalizing it

As for abolishing the federal reserve it is so improbable (that it is his position) that the burden of proof would definitely fall on you to prove that he does support its abolition


So you got 1 legit source and 1 bias news station. The rest is assumption.
You seem to know nothing about the guy, yet were willing to vote for him =/

Bring me back to my first point; you are card stacking policies.

I know where he stands on policies which I find currently most important, the other policies I could care less about.
I agree with Romney and Paul on different issues. In 2008 I would have voted for Paul over Romney; now I think Romney's policies are better at this moment in time.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 7:59:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 7:48:28 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/11/2012 7:00:13 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Dan, you are seriously contesting that?!
If you really want the non-wiki sources (which is a bit silly - wikipedia is just as good as nearly anything else on the net in this situation)

Drugs;
http://www.cnn.com...

Increase military size;
http://mittromney.com...
Plus there is countless shizzle on his war support

Nothing on SOPA, but odds are he'd support it looking at his behaviour in the past.

Nothing on prostitution - safe to assume he is against legalizing it

As for abolishing the federal reserve it is so improbable (that it is his position) that the burden of proof would definitely fall on you to prove that he does support its abolition


So you got 1 legit source and 1 bias news station. The rest is assumption.
You seem to know nothing about the guy, yet were willing to vote for him =/

Bring me back to my first point; you are card stacking policies.

I know where he stands on policies which I find currently most important, the other policies I could care less about.
I agree with Romney and Paul on different issues. In 2008 I would have voted for Paul over Romney; now I think Romney's policies are better at this moment in time.

They are reporting on things he said - thought they might spin it one way or another they will rarely directly lie. People get sued for that sort of thing. There were hundreds of sources but I got bored.
I don't know which policies you care about - I just thought it was absolutely ridiculous that you could contest any one of those claims and demand sources.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 10:22:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 6:35:23 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:09:11 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/10/2012 11:55:10 PM, OberHerr wrote:
My guess? We will talk of the first Mormon president in 2013.

So you just ignore everything said in the OP?

That was an underwhelming win for Romney. They expected Romney to be in the 40s and Ron Paul to be in the teens. Ron Paul over-performed, Romney failed in his home-state and neighboring state.

Actually Jon Hunstman over performed, not Paul.

False, Ron Paul most certainly did overperform. If you look at all the polls from a month before the primary, most show Paul in the very high teens, a very small amount show him in the 20s. And even most of the small amount that show him in the 20s show him below the 23% that he did achieve.

http://en.wikipedia.org... - compilation of polls at that link
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 3:46:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 10:22:08 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 1/11/2012 6:35:23 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/11/2012 12:09:11 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/10/2012 11:55:10 PM, OberHerr wrote:
My guess? We will talk of the first Mormon president in 2013.

So you just ignore everything said in the OP?

That was an underwhelming win for Romney. They expected Romney to be in the 40s and Ron Paul to be in the teens. Ron Paul over-performed, Romney failed in his home-state and neighboring state.

Actually Jon Hunstman over performed, not Paul.

False, Ron Paul most certainly did overperform. If you look at all the polls from a month before the primary, most show Paul in the very high teens, a very small amount show him in the 20s. And even most of the small amount that show him in the 20s show him below the 23% that he did achieve.

http://en.wikipedia.org... - compilation of polls at that link

Romney -- 39%
Paul -- 23%
Huntsman -- 17%
Gingrich -- 9.4%
Santorum -- 9.4%
Perry -- 1%

Wrong the results shown here show Paul in the 20s and while few have shown him, that does not mean several have thus Paul only slightly over performed, but Huntsman was way down up until the last days of the primary so he was the one to over perform.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 3:58:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 7:59:18 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/11/2012 7:48:28 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/11/2012 7:00:13 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Dan, you are seriously contesting that?!
If you really want the non-wiki sources (which is a bit silly - wikipedia is just as good as nearly anything else on the net in this situation)

Drugs;
http://www.cnn.com...

Increase military size;
http://mittromney.com...
Plus there is countless shizzle on his war support

Nothing on SOPA, but odds are he'd support it looking at his behaviour in the past.

Nothing on prostitution - safe to assume he is against legalizing it

As for abolishing the federal reserve it is so improbable (that it is his position) that the burden of proof would definitely fall on you to prove that he does support its abolition


So you got 1 legit source and 1 bias news station. The rest is assumption.
You seem to know nothing about the guy, yet were willing to vote for him =/

Bring me back to my first point; you are card stacking policies.

I know where he stands on policies which I find currently most important, the other policies I could care less about.
I agree with Romney and Paul on different issues. In 2008 I would have voted for Paul over Romney; now I think Romney's policies are better at this moment in time.

They are reporting on things he said - thought they might spin it one way or another they will rarely directly lie. People get sued for that sort of thing. There were hundreds of sources but I got bored.
I don't know which policies you care about - I just thought it was absolutely ridiculous that you could contest any one of those claims and demand sources.

I wasn't denying that they were true, I just prefer sources.

Cherry picking policies which Paul and Romney differ on does not prove they don't have similarities. As I state originally, Paul is Classic Liberal, and Romney is (classic) Liberal-Conservative.
In other words Romney combines aspects of traditional conservatism, and classic liberalism; that is not to say Romney is classic liberal.

It's really not that hard to read what I write, yet people always seem to skip the most important parts of what I say.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 7:09:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 3:58:42 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/11/2012 7:59:18 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/11/2012 7:48:28 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/11/2012 7:00:13 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Dan, you are seriously contesting that?!
If you really want the non-wiki sources (which is a bit silly - wikipedia is just as good as nearly anything else on the net in this situation)

Drugs;
http://www.cnn.com...

Increase military size;
http://mittromney.com...
Plus there is countless shizzle on his war support

Nothing on SOPA, but odds are he'd support it looking at his behaviour in the past.

Nothing on prostitution - safe to assume he is against legalizing it

As for abolishing the federal reserve it is so improbable (that it is his position) that the burden of proof would definitely fall on you to prove that he does support its abolition


So you got 1 legit source and 1 bias news station. The rest is assumption.
You seem to know nothing about the guy, yet were willing to vote for him =/

Bring me back to my first point; you are card stacking policies.

I know where he stands on policies which I find currently most important, the other policies I could care less about.
I agree with Romney and Paul on different issues. In 2008 I would have voted for Paul over Romney; now I think Romney's policies are better at this moment in time.

They are reporting on things he said - thought they might spin it one way or another they will rarely directly lie. People get sued for that sort of thing. There were hundreds of sources but I got bored.
I don't know which policies you care about - I just thought it was absolutely ridiculous that you could contest any one of those claims and demand sources.

I wasn't denying that they were true, I just prefer sources.

Cherry picking policies which Paul and Romney differ on does not prove they don't have similarities. As I state originally, Paul is Classic Liberal, and Romney is (classic) Liberal-Conservative.
In other words Romney combines aspects of traditional conservatism, and classic liberalism; that is not to say Romney is classic liberal.

It's really not that hard to read what I write, yet people always seem to skip the most important parts of what I say.

Just out of curiosity, do you think Mitt Romney really believes any of the so called "(classic) Liberal-Conservative" positions he apparently espouses, or would remain faithful to them as President. No candidate in recent history has flip-flopped as much as he has. He's the epitome of a good looking, slick haired, smooth talking, flip-flopping, sold out politician. His allegiance lies with the lobbyists and big banks, not with We The People.

But this is common knowledge.... Even those who support him do so because they think (falsely) that he's the most "electable" vs. Obama. (These are the people that think all our problems will be solved as long as we get Obama out of office and replace him with pretty much any Republican.) How many people really support Mitt Romney because of his ideas/beliefs? If he didn't look and sound Presidential and "electable", I doubt he'd have a significant amount of support.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 7:15:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Huntsman did NOT over perform! He spent all his time, resources, and money in New Hampshire and took a gamble and lost. He got a pitiful 3rd place showing. When Santorum did the same thing in Iowa, he got first.

Btw, don't forget Ron Paul is in close second in overall delegates. Paul and Romney are the only candidates with double digit delegates. Everyone else, pitiful.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 7:16:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 7:15:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Huntsman did NOT over perform! He spent all his time, resources, and money in New Hampshire and took a gamble and lost. He got a pitiful 3rd place showing. When Santorum did the same thing in Iowa, he got first.

Btw, don't forget Ron Paul is in close second in overall delegates. Paul and Romney are the only candidates with double digit delegates. Everyone else, pitiful.

What's the delegate count so far?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 7:20:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 7:16:59 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 1/11/2012 7:15:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Huntsman did NOT over perform! He spent all his time, resources, and money in New Hampshire and took a gamble and lost. He got a pitiful 3rd place showing. When Santorum did the same thing in Iowa, he got first.

Btw, don't forget Ron Paul is in close second in overall delegates. Paul and Romney are the only candidates with double digit delegates. Everyone else, pitiful.

What's the delegate count so far?

I believe its:

Romney: 14
Paul: 10
Santorum: 7
Gingrich: 2
Huntsman: 2
Perry: 1

.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 7:22:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 7:20:16 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/11/2012 7:16:59 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 1/11/2012 7:15:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Huntsman did NOT over perform! He spent all his time, resources, and money in New Hampshire and took a gamble and lost. He got a pitiful 3rd place showing. When Santorum did the same thing in Iowa, he got first.

Btw, don't forget Ron Paul is in close second in overall delegates. Paul and Romney are the only candidates with double digit delegates. Everyone else, pitiful.

What's the delegate count so far?

I believe its:

Romney: 14
Paul: 10
Santorum: 8
Gingrich: 3
Huntsman: 2
Perry: 4




.
.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 7:25:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 7:15:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Huntsman did NOT over perform! He spent all his time, resources, and money in New Hampshire and took a gamble and lost. He got a pitiful 3rd place showing. When Santorum did the same thing in Iowa, he got first.

Btw, don't forget Ron Paul is in close second in overall delegates. Paul and Romney are the only candidates with double digit delegates. Everyone else, pitiful.

He said he was staying in the race, seems that the gamble paid off as he is more aware now for South Carolina.

As you can see from some polls as N.H. was getting closer:
01/05 NBC/Marist -- Romney 42, Paul 22, Santorum 13, Huntsman 9
01/05 Rasmussen -- Romney 42, Paul 18, Santorum 13, Huntsman 12
01/05 WMUR/UNH -- Romney 44, Paul 20, Santorum 8, Gingrich 8
01/04 Wash Times -- Romney 38, Paul 24, Santorum 11, Gingrich 9
01/04 Suffolk/7News -- Romney 41, Paul 18, Santorum 8, Gingrich 7
01/02 Suffolk/7News -- Romney 43, Paul 17, Huntsman 9, Gingrich 8

Then you can go to polls just before the primary:
01/09 Rasmussen -- Romney 37, Paul 17, Huntsman 15, Santorum 13
01/09 ARG -- Romney 37, Huntsman 18, Paul 17, Santorum 11
01/09 Suffolk/7News -- Romney 37, Paul 18, Huntsman 16, Santorum 11
01/08 WMUR/UNH -- Romney 41, Paul 17, Huntsman 11, Santorum 11
01/08 PPP (D) -- Romney 35, Paul 18, Huntsman 16, Gingrich 12
01/07 Suffolk/7News -- Romney 35, Paul 20, Huntsman 11, Gingrich 9
01/07 ARG -- Romney 40, Huntsman 17, Paul 16, Santorum 12

Hunstman was picking up steam and in some cases winning over Paul, but still Paul managed to get in the high teens and even the twenties so a 3, 4, or 5% difference from an average poll to his winning at 23% is high, but not very high as Santorum was in Iowa and Hunstman campaigned very low falling behind the conservatives even, but just like Santorum a climb just before the primary made him exceed expectations. He went from a 9-12% span in the polls to a 15-18% span Paul was able to keep a span of usually 18-21% of an average in most of these polls so his 23% win is actually not that big.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2012 7:40:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/11/2012 7:25:49 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 1/11/2012 7:15:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Huntsman did NOT over perform! He spent all his time, resources, and money in New Hampshire and took a gamble and lost. He got a pitiful 3rd place showing. When Santorum did the same thing in Iowa, he got first.

Btw, don't forget Ron Paul is in close second in overall delegates. Paul and Romney are the only candidates with double digit delegates. Everyone else, pitiful.

He said he was staying in the race, seems that the gamble paid off as he is more aware now for South Carolina.

As you can see from some polls as N.H. was getting closer:
01/05 NBC/Marist -- Romney 42, Paul 22, Santorum 13, Huntsman 9
01/05 Rasmussen -- Romney 42, Paul 18, Santorum 13, Huntsman 12
01/05 WMUR/UNH -- Romney 44, Paul 20, Santorum 8, Gingrich 8
01/04 Wash Times -- Romney 38, Paul 24, Santorum 11, Gingrich 9
01/04 Suffolk/7News -- Romney 41, Paul 18, Santorum 8, Gingrich 7
01/02 Suffolk/7News -- Romney 43, Paul 17, Huntsman 9, Gingrich 8

Then you can go to polls just before the primary:
01/09 Rasmussen -- Romney 37, Paul 17, Huntsman 15, Santorum 13
01/09 ARG -- Romney 37, Huntsman 18, Paul 17, Santorum 11
01/09 Suffolk/7News -- Romney 37, Paul 18, Huntsman 16, Santorum 11
01/08 WMUR/UNH -- Romney 41, Paul 17, Huntsman 11, Santorum 11
01/08 PPP (D) -- Romney 35, Paul 18, Huntsman 16, Gingrich 12
01/07 Suffolk/7News -- Romney 35, Paul 20, Huntsman 11, Gingrich 9
01/07 ARG -- Romney 40, Huntsman 17, Paul 16, Santorum 12

Hunstman was picking up steam and in some cases winning over Paul, but still Paul managed to get in the high teens and even the twenties so a 3, 4, or 5% difference from an average poll to his winning at 23% is high, but not very high as Santorum was in Iowa and Hunstman campaigned very low falling behind the conservatives even, but just like Santorum a climb just before the primary made him exceed expectations. He went from a 9-12% span in the polls to a 15-18% span Paul was able to keep a span of usually 18-21% of an average in most of these polls so his 23% win is actually not that big.

Nobody's contending it was a crazy, momentous improvement over his poll showings. At least I'm not... The fact is he over performed, and not just by a point or two. He was averaging around 18% in the 10 days before the primary. (And even lower if we factor in the whole month before.) Some polls showed him even lower than 18%. He overperformed his average in the polls by at least 5%. A 5% increase is pretty big.