posted
How many times must Ron Paul beat Rudy Giuliani before either (a) Giuliani drops out or (b) the media starts reporting fairly on Ron Paul?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When they get to a state that Giuliani has actually gone to in an attempt to get votes. He obviously doesn't care about the other states, and as long as he stands a good chance of winning the later ones, it might not matter.
Not that I support Giuliani. Or Ron Paul, for that matter.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed, Giuliani has made it plain that his break out state is Florida. The press is taking him at his word.
I'm not sure how wise that strategy is, only time will tell, but I suppose he does pay very intelligent people to make these decisions with him.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Lisa might also be pointing to the fact that, though Giuliani might never have intended to win any of those states, he also never intended to get utterly clobbered in the fashion that he did.
Lisa, he's in it until HyperTuesday, after which I think two of the four or so "viable" candidates will be dropping out. I can't say who, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was one of them. He was leading in Michigan just a couple weeks ago, and dropped down to neglibigle numbers in that time, that's pretty pathetic for a lot of reasons, to say nothing of the most liberal candidate not being able to pick up Democratic votes in an open primary where the Democratic election didn't much matter.
And Paul will likely never get the kind of respect in the media that you'd like, though, considering they've left Duncan Hunter out of the last two GOP debates, and Kucinich and Gravel off the last two Dem ones, I think you're getting SOME respect shown by the fact that they left him into the debates, even if only to be the whipping boy of the GOP all during the debate, and for that matter of the moderator.
Blackblade -
Skipping Iowa was smart. I don't think he was ever going to win there, and Romney proved that. Romney is far more Conservative than Giuliani and after spending millions there he still got smoked by Huckabee. Skipping Michigan and New Hampshire, well, that's a little more fishy, but also probably smart. McCain had an advantage there, as did Romney in Michigan. He's paying a little bit of attention to Nevada, and also ignoring South Carolina, also sort of smart, there's too many people ahead of him. He's counting on larger more liberal states to vote for him.
The problem I have to see with that past the primaries is, how many Conservative states can you skip and still expect to win the General as a Conservative? It's not a bad strategy, in this specific election, with so many candidates winning different primaries (if Thompson of all people wins South Carolina, I think Reagan will rise out of his grave to haunt them all), no one is getting the momentum bump that usually propels a Republican to victory early on.
Giuliani will crush Paul in Florida, but he still might not win. That'll get him closer to that drop out that you want Lisa, but it won't come until a week later.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As has been noted, Guiliani has deliberately been pinning his hopes and focusing his considerable war chest on the later contests, although he has been doing worse in the earlies than expected. Despite that, he might still get the nomination.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, has no chance at all of winning.
I'm never happy with the media's coverage of elections, especially primaries, but I think you, Lisa, want the media to treat Paul like a serious contender when he is not.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There had been a poll on CNN showing Giuliani might take Nevada, but it was dated December 4. Ummm, probably not, now.
I watched Steve Forbes, Giuliani's co-chair, on Larry King and I haven't seen such a liar since the 2000 election when this democratic fellow tried to say he thought most of the military mail in ballots would go to Gore, because, you know, military people don't make too much money.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Romney is far more Conservative than Giuliani and after spending millions there he still got smoked by Huckabee.
I agree with you that Giuliani would not have done well in Iowa, but I think it's worth noting that Huckabee took Iowa away from Romney in the space of about 2 weeks, starting at the debates and ending on primary day. I am convinced that the other candidates indifference towards Huckabee, coupled with his easy debate questions, and his friendly manner ignited a powder keg of voters who were going to vote for Romney because he seemed to be the most Christian. Once Huckabee became visible they all breathed a sigh of relief and simply voted for the traditional Christian conservative.
Huckabee milks votes only from Romney.
edit: I should note that Romney did poorly on the religious questions in the Iowa debate, I think this alone cost him the Iowa primary.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but I think that's part of a larger debate on why it was smart for him to avoid Iowa. Rudy isn't someone the religious right can easily accept, and in a state with a large population of religious voters, wouldn't you think it's smart for him to just bow out and refocus elsewhere with so many other much more palatable candidates?
I think you're right that no, Giuliani couldn't have known months ago that Huckabee would explode from behind and snag the victory, but it doesn't matter. Romney's lead on Giuliani was so large that it wouldn't have mattered if Huckabee were there or not.
I think Huckabee milks votes from across the fold, depending on the state. It's been hard to nail down his supporters outside of the religious voters, people are really all over the place with this one, and each candidate represents overlapping parts of the Republican platform with differing personalities.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Giuliani expected to be where we see Romney: seldom first, but somehow holding the most delegates going into super Tuesday. I don't know why Giuliani wouldn't have expected to do better in New Hampshire. I thought that was supposed to be within his region of influence. He's supposed to come across as the Republican Blue staters could vote for.
The trouble is, if you're in a blue state and you're still a Republican, I think you are probably a fairly conservative Republican with some strong ideological and/or religious reasons for being one, and that is not who Giuliani plays to. Giuliani had name recognition going for him, and these early victories have now given name recognition to everyone else.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm never happy with the media's coverage of elections, especially primaries, but I think you, Lisa, want the media to treat Paul like a serious contender when he is not.
He's been getting respectable results even with his extremely limited press coverage. I'd question which is the cause and which is the effect.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's been getting respectable results even with his extremely limited press coverage. I'd question which is the cause and which is the effect.
Of course he is. There's a committed libetarian base that is supporting him no matter what. Outside that base, he might pick up strong anti-war people as long as they don't look to deeply into the rest of his message or spend any time around his supporters.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I should note that Romney did poorly on the religious questions in the Iowa debate, I think this alone cost him the Iowa primary.
I think Romney has made several moves that have made him look pretty dishonest and lacking in character, which is hurting him quite a bit too. People weren't incredibly enthusiastic about him before and are not willing to forgive this like they would with a more popular candidate.
edit: One of the things I don't think that many LDS on Hatrack seem to realize is that many people outside your religion don't see him as the perfect candidate you do for reasons other than his religion.
quote: I should note that Romney did poorly on the religious questions in the Iowa debate, I think this alone cost him the Iowa primary.
I think Romney has made several moves that have made him look pretty dishonest and lacking in character, which is hurting him quite a bit too. People weren't incredibly enthusiastic about him before and are not willing to forgive this like they would with a more popular candidate.
edit: One of the things I don't think that many LDS on Hatrack seem to realize is that many people outside your religion don't see him as the perfect candidate you do for reasons other than his religion.
Almost sounds like you are saying, "No he wasn't just bad, he was terrible!" Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but as I said, a lot of his Republican support - rightly or wrongly - wasn't extremely enthusiastic about him. So, when he makes people doubt his character and honesty, they aren't going to forgive that.
In the perception of many Republican voters, Mitt Romney is not a great candidate. They may think he's a good one or the best one out of the lot, but there seems to be a perception among some LDS here that the only reason people wouldn't vote for him is religion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can go back and check, I have not been particularly paranoid about Romney. I would vote for him, but I don't think he's the only hope for the U.S. and that anyone who opposes him is evil. Ah, you said "many LDS on Hatrack". Well, that does seem to be the case.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Outside that base, he might pick up strong anti-war people as long as they don't look to deeply into the rest of his message or spend any time around his supporters.
I am a republican who voted for Bush once and voted against Kerry once. I have been a lifelong republican. I have looked deeply into his message and am very familiar with his supporters.
I support Ron Paul--both in terms of donations and canvassing. Soon I will support him with my vote.
My brother is a very liberal play-writer who concedes that Paul probably is a racist, but he still thinks Paul will help different races better then the other candidates. He used to be a huge Obama supporter, but once he heard Paul speak he realized that Obama, despite his eloquence, was all rhetoric and no meat.
I have other friends, family, and co-workers who do not fit into your mold of his support base.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: edit: One of the things I don't think that many LDS on Hatrack seem to realize is that many people outside your religion don't see him as the perfect candidate you do for reasons other than his religion.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm fully aware that he's got a reputation as something of a weaselly flip-flopper, and I happen to agree with that perception.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am (in addition to differences on policy which he shares with most of the other republicans) bothered by the notion that, if you're a bizillionaire you get a shot at being president that non-bizillionaires don't get.
Same reason I wouldn't vote for Bloomberg. One reason anyway.
I know it is true and we're stuck with it, but I don't want to support it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
JB: I must admit that around the middle of this Daily Show clip, that got a good laugh out of me link
"Not only can I talk change, but I've lived it" "For example, you see that clip of me from last week? I've changed already, how many of you can change like that?" Heh.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr S: I too cannot speak for other LDS folks on hatrack but though I think Romney would make a fine candidate, he is not the only one I would vote for. I certainly see the objections Republicans have to his candidacy outside of his religion.
I'm not convinced he is as MUCH of a flip flopper as he is portrayed, but part of me wishes Mitt's father was his age and that he was the Romney running for president right now.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
This might sound totally odd, but I actually sort of like the idea of Bloomberg specifically because he is a billionaire. It's not fair that they have that sort of advantage, but I don't know it's sort of the way it goes. There will always be people richer than me, and money will always lead to privilege. You still have to have SOMETHING of worth to get elected, the money just gets you noticed.
But specifically I like the fact that he could essentially just do what he wants, what he personally supports. He wouldn't take donatiosn from ANYONE, and therefore he wouldn't be beholden from anyone. When's the last time we had a president like that? Washington? I'm really curious as to the effect it would have.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Giuliani was referred to as Paul's pseudo-rival on a PBS blog. That's kind of some validation.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
