The "not Romney" wave cycle

[GhostWriter16]

I don't really think the Mormon factor has much to do with it. Evangelical Christians are showing their religious objections very strangely by voting for a couple Catholics in Gingrich and Santorum.

Well, that's an interesting topic, but most Evangelicals I know consider a saved person in Catholicism to be more likely than a saved person in Mormonism. I personally don't see why it should matter much in politics anyways. I still can't stand the idea of Mittens as President for other reasons though.

 

[kochman]

Looks like Romney outlasted them all though. He's going to take either MS or Alabama next week and end the race.

Yeah, he has because he's the only actual good one... the others were flashes in the pan... once they were put under the microscope, their crazier nonsense came out, and they lost popularity. Populism...

Romney doesn't have that problem, he's been under the microscope since 2008... he's pretty clean, in many senses. He's got staying power... no October surprises to worry about really.

However, populism can turn things around... thank goodness for a long primary process, that gets the other drips out of the equation sooner or later. The vetting of candidates is good...
People say, oh, a long primary hurts. I disagree... it means more time people have been negative toward you, and if you are still surviving, you will survive when the other party throws out all the stops in the general election...

Worked for Obama (and would've for Clinton as well), will work for Romney.

 

[Verarde]

Well, that's an interesting topic, but most Evangelicals I know consider a saved person in Catholicism to be more likely than a saved person in Mormonism. I personally don't see why it should matter much in politics anyways. I still can't stand the idea of Mittens as President for other reasons though.

+1

I haven't completely formed my opinions on the subject, but I prefer Gingrich for reasons other than his religious or moral standpoints. Sure, those are important, but so are policies.

 

[GhostWriter16]

+1

I haven't completely formed my opinions on the subject, but I prefer Gingrich for reasons other than his religious or moral standpoints. Sure, those are important, but so are policies.

-1

You want Gingrich to win?????

Romney's Mormonism doesn't matter to me, but his lies and flip-flopping do. As does Gingrich abandoning his sick wife.

Ron Paul has a clean bill on everything: Go Paul!!!

 

[Verarde]

-1

Paul would be a weak president. I look at him and think, "That guy can barely debate, he looks frail and is hardly inspiring."

Sure, Gingrich left his wife. That's disappointing to hear. But he is someone who is strong and confident, which is something that I don't think Paul is.

 

[GhostWriter16]

-2

Strong, confident, and a dirtbag. No thanks.

Maybe we should just all vote for Ronald Reagan...

Paul would still be a decent president.

 

[Verarde]

Pfft, if someone could resurrect Reagan, and I was 18+, I would vote for him.

Paul could be decent, but I don't know how strong he would be.

I'm also interested in Santorum. But not Paul. And definitely not Romney.

 

[NickyJ]

-1

Paul would be a weak president. I look at him and think, "That guy can barely debate, he looks frail and is hardly inspiring."

Sure, Gingrich left his wife. That's disappointing to hear. But he is someone who is strong and confident, which is something that I don't think Paul is.

I love a guy who strongly and confidently runs our country headfirst into the ground.

Ron Paul, I can't really support because of his foreign policy. I'd write-in Jeb Bush before voting for him. As for Gingrich, I'd write-in Jimmy Peanut before voting for him.

 

[Leoreth]

Pfft, if someone could resurrect Reagan, and I was 18+, I would vote for him.

Paul could be decent, but I don't know how strong he would be.

I'm also interested in Santorum. But not Paul. And definitely not Romney.

Sounds like you're the "not Romney" wave personified

Ron Paul, I can't really support because of his foreign policy. I'd write-in Jeb Bush before voting for him. As for Gingrich, I'd write-in Jimmy Peanut before voting for him.

Of all things about Paul you choose his foreign policy?

 

[madviking]

Next up, wave o' babies!

 

[GhostWriter16]

Ron Paul, I can't really support because of his foreign policy. I'd write-in Jeb Bush before voting for him. As for Gingrich, I'd write-in Jimmy Peanut before voting for him.

Another Bush? Unless Jeb Bush has openly condemned George W's presidency, I'd rather not. I know that's a little unfair, but whatever.

I don't think I'd vote for Carter over Gingrich either... Yet another "vote third party" situation, just like Mittens VS Obama would be.

 

[JollyRoger]

Given his divorce and pro-union activities, would you have voted for Reagan, Ghostwriter?

 

[NickyJ]

Of all things about Paul you choose his foreign policy?

Crawling up in a ball and hiding from the world isn't going to clean up the mess we've made. We made it, so we darn well better clean it up.

Another Bush? Unless Jeb Bush has openly condemned George W's presidency, I'd rather not. I know that's a little unfair, but whatever.

No Republican other than Ron Paul would condemn W's presidency.

I don't think I'd vote for Carter over Gingrich either... Yet another "vote third party" situation, just like Mittens VS Obama would be.

Yeah, I was just going a little extreme for that one.

 

[Cutlass]

No Republican other than Ron Paul would condemn W's presidency.

Actually many of them are. He was a failure despite because of doing everything he was told to do. And so many are distancing themselves from him and saying he wasn't a "true conservative".

 

[NickyJ]

Yes, but have you heard any Republican candidate at any time since W actually openly condemn it?

 

[Cutlass]

The Republican candidates for president don't want anyone to even think about Bush. Since they're all running to be Bush^2, reminding the voters how much Bush sucked would be a really stupid move.

 

[Luckymoose]

The current flock that is running cannot compare to Bush because he was too liberal for them.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yet they try to make the case they are the second coming of the even more liberal Reagan.

 

[Cutlass]

The current flock that is running cannot compare to Bush because he was too liberal for them.

They'd like to claim that, at any rate. Even though he was the perfect conservative.

 

[Traitorfish]

Sure, Gingrich left his wife. That's disappointing to hear. But he is someone who is strong and confident, which is something that I don't think Paul is.

You people make this too bloody easy.