"Mitt Romney will declare victory himself to be the Republican Party's nominee..."

[J_White]

Once Again, the people will get a Government and President, that they DESERVE !
I am only sad for those of us, who would suffer because of the idiocy of the uninformed majority.

Idiocracy Lives !!

 

[Ivash]

On Rand Paul: He is actually more popular within the GOP and the media than many people here think. He probably won't have much of a chance in 2016 given the extremely amount of (what is referred to as) talent that is going to be running, but if he establishes himself there he could have a decent shot at 2024 (the odds of a Republican losing in 2016 is minimal if Obama wins in 2012).

Now I know a lot of people who think that is too long away, but political systems can take decades to fall apart. Despite one of the worst centuries any nation has ever face in history the Russian people were able to continue working under a mostly incompetent system that killed more of its own people than their enemies. The reason it survived is not only because Russians are a ridiculously tough people, but because political systems can take decades to really effect change. (That the Soviet Union was a super power that could take on a nation that has never suffered 1/100 of the terrors the Russians faced last century is another reason, but it doesn't apply here. It is also pretty amazing when you think about it.)

Without a black swan event it is unlikely that America won't be a democracy in 2024.

 

[coffeewithchess]

I'm going to have to defend Paul's campaign here. Romney had a lot of advantages going into this election- far more than Paul did. He was well known, rich, already marked down as electable and not-dangerous for Republican Congressional and Senatorial chances (unlike Santorum, Newt, and, yes, Paul) by both the media and the GOP establishment, and, well, the fact is that a lot of people simply aren't libertarians. Some don't know what libertarianism is, some misunderstand it, and some simply don't agree with its message. There wasn't much Paul could do about most of those things.

The only advantage Romney had over RP was money, and a campaign willing to adapt and change as necessary.
Please, name me a campaign that has the type of supporters that RP's does? NONE.
Name me the campaign that with as little media attention, raised as much money? NONE.
Name me the campaign(s) that raised less money than RP's, but won more states than RP's? Santorum's and Gingrich's.
Name me the campaign that sat around for 2-3 weeks, never holding an official press conference to dispel the crap newsletters from 20 years ago...that apparently tanked it in Iowa? RP's.
Name me the campaign that raised $9 million dollars, after a scandal broke about sexual harassment and affairs? Herman Cain's...and Herman Cain was out in full apparent lying force, denying everything...but using it to raise money.

Are we really getting worked up over a commercial? Yeah it could probably be a little more effective but you people are acting like Ron's rolling in the dough and can run a meticulously perfected campaign that can turn on a dime. Were getting upset over a commercial here. Don't you think that'st just a bit too nit picky considering what has been accomplished so far? The party is being changed from within. Not from a 30 second tv commercial. Excuse my bluntness, but get over it.

Worked up over a commercial? No, worked up over repeated inept campaign decisions. What's the point of raising millions, if you don't turn on a dime? The campaign could troll YouTube and put together videos for less than $5K easily, and have them by the dozens (see Jon Huntsman's daughters producing ads).
If you have grassroots supporters spending their own time/money to create Romney/Obama videos...why can't a campaign that has raised more than $30 million do it in less than 2 weeks?

If the party is being changed from within, as you say, then why does the campaign waste money running an ad that doesn't even apply to Santorum now, and probably won't apply to Newt in the next few days (if not weeks)?

 

[Tiso0770]

Once Again, the people will get a Government and President, that they DESERVE !
I am only sad for those of us, who would suffer because of the idiocy of the uninformed majority.

Idiocracy Lives !!

If Romney gets in, just wait when everyone is forced to pay medical insurance just like auto insurance. this sounds like a Hillery Clinton nightmare repeat back in Bill Clinton's term....Yikes!!!

 

[Paulistinian]

Has Ron made a statement yet?

 

[Keith and stuff]

If Romney gets in, just wait when everyone is forced to pay medical insurance just like auto insurance. this sounds like a Hillery Clinton nightmare repeat back in Bill Clinton's term....Yikes!!!

Everyone isn't forced to pay auto insurance. Where I live, the Democrats in the House unanimously rejected such a crappy idea. Anyway, Romney or any President has the ability to stop allow states to vote to stop that aspect of Obamacare with an executive order.

 

[floridasun1983]

I'm going to have to defend Paul's campaign here. Romney had a lot of advantages going into this election- far more than Paul did. He was well known, rich, already marked down as electable and not-dangerous for Republican Congressional and Senatorial chances (unlike Santorum, Newt, and, yes, Paul) by both the media and the GOP establishment, and, well, the fact is that a lot of people simply aren't libertarians. Some don't know what libertarianism is, some misunderstand it, and some simply don't agree with its message. There wasn't much Paul could do about most of those things.

There hasn't been as uninspiring a GOP candidate for President since perhaps Bob Dole. Romney had money, but he had a lot of negatives too; connections to Wall Street during a time when they are at record unpopularity, he's a Mormon, he's got a record of flip flopping on ever issue, etc etc etc. To claim he was such a superhero candidate that Paul never stood a chance is to rewrite history to make yourself feel better about all the mistakes this campaign made at every possible turn to capitalize on their chances.

 

[cindy25]

if Romney wins then Rand will be almost an opposition senator, especially with foreign policy. Romney would almost have to put up a viable primary opponent. Ron was tolerated because it was only a house seat, but senate is different.

 

[cindy25]

There hasn't been as uninspiring a GOP candidate for President since perhaps Bob Dole. Romney had money, but he had a lot of negatives too; connections to Wall Street during a time when they are at record unpopularity, he's a Mormon, he's got a record of flip flopping on ever issue, etc etc etc. To claim he was such a superhero candidate that Paul never stood a chance is to rewrite history to make yourself feel better about all the mistakes this campaign made at every possible turn to capitalize on their chances.

Mormonism was a positive in the GOP primaries, as they block vote as much as blacks did for Obama, and they turned out. If Obama was not black Hillary would be president now.

 

[kombayn]

I've always said that Rand Paul's best move is to run for Governor of Kentucky in 2015, he'll have his senate credentials then can earn his executive credentials. Say the Dems win again 2016 well after 2019 Rand can decline a 2nd term and then run for President in 2020 or run a 2nd term then run in 2024. It makes perfect sense for him to do that.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Mormonism was a positive in the GOP primaries, as they block vote as much as blacks did for Obama, and they turned out. If Obama was not black Hillary would be president now.

Interesting post. I also know so called racist whites who voted for Obama because he was black. However, that doesn't go against what you said. Think of all of the women whom voted for Hillary, though, because she was a woman.

Personally, I'd never vote for someone because of their religion, sex, color or anything else like that.

 

[Ivash]

The only advantage Romney had over RP was money, and a campaign willing to adapt and change as necessary.
Please, name me a campaign that has the type of supporters that RP's does? NONE.
Name me the campaign that with as little media attention, raised as much money? NONE.
Name me the campaign(s) that raised less money than RP's, but won more states than RP's? Santorum's and Gingrich's.
Name me the campaign that sat around for 2-3 weeks, never holding an official press conference to dispel the crap newsletters from 20 years ago...that apparently tanked it in Iowa? RP's.
Name me the campaign that raised $9 million dollars, after a scandal broke about sexual harassment and affairs? Herman Cain's...and Herman Cain was out in full apparent lying force, denying everything...but using it to raise money.

I'm not saying that Paul's campaign was great (the Iowa Response was pretty pathetic), just that it wasn't as horrible as people are making it out to be. And you are ignoring many of Romney's strengths if you believe that the only positives he had were his flexibility and his money.

There hasn't been as uninspiring a GOP candidate for President since perhaps Bob Dole. Romney had money, but he had a lot of negatives too; connections to Wall Street during a time when they are at record unpopularity, he's a Mormon, he's got a record of flip flopping on ever issue, etc etc etc. To claim he was such a superhero candidate that Paul never stood a chance is to rewrite history to make yourself feel better about all the mistakes this campaign made at every possible turn to capitalize on their chances.

Maybe that criticism would work for anyone else on this forum, but I'm not a supporter of Ron Paul so I have no need to 'make myself feel better' about his campaign. I honestly believe that Paul's campaign wasn't badly run, though it did make some mistakes (and one critical, perhaps fatal, error before Iowa). I don't believe Romney was a 'super-hero' candidate, and probably the only reason he won is because the slot of Republicans this cycle has been extraordinarily weak and uninspiring (not counting Ron Paul with his fanatical supporters, naturally).

The main problem that Dr. Paul has is that a lot of people just don't agree with his views. Some people don't agree with him because they don't understand his views, but I feel that a good deal don't agree with his views because they believe another course of action would be better. And there is nothing wrong with that. I don't think anyone could overcome that kind of obstacle.

 

[speciallyblend]

Dude, just accept that they aren't going to attack Rom for whatever reason. I don't know what else to say.

I predict they will attack and it will be a bombshell. There will be only one choice in tampa, Ron Paul or the gop elects obama! If they do not attack romney before convention. Then i have to think they do not want to win! I think they would have a surge in fundraising if they were to go on the offensive. Something tells me they have a plan to win and expose romney right before the convention or at the convention. This is the only way i can explain the love affair right now of not attacking romney. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lE6Htee0sA<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lE6Htee0sA">

 

[DEGuy]

Just listened to Romney's speech - all rhetoric and no substance. Based on previous speeches, I can assume the rest of the campaign will go the same way. I want a candidate that says more than, "The last guy did a terrible job, but I'm going to restore America to greatness! AMERICA! WOO!" Seriously Mitt. How? What is your plan? What would you do as president? I wouldn't even elect a school board member without knowing where they stood on important topics, much less the president.

 

[LawnWake]

We have to face the music, folks. The only reason this is Mitt Romney instead of Ron Paul declaring victory tonight is because of the total incompetence of the campaign. I know there are campaign apologist here who will offer every excuse and attempt to obfuscate the facts, but it is what it is.

The beginning of the end was Iowa, where the campaign utterly failed to anticipate and counter the "racist news letters" that everybody and his brother knew they were going to throw at us. Despite the setback in Iowa and the Hunstman false flag ordeal, the good folks of New Hampshire delivered a strong showing for us. The campaign followed this up with an utterly baffling toe-dipping in South Carolina, then ignored Florida totally, supposedly to win Nevada. That too did not happen, and they rode the "delegate strategy" meme as far as it could take them, which by my reckoning is tonight.

The total lack of effort to seize on the momentum of Santorum dropping out to attack Romney is inexcusable. The campaigns lack of willingness to quit with the rockstar peprallies is infuriating. This campaign has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory so many times its just plain sad.

Well, now its on to 2016 with the next generation, whoever that may be. I don't believe Rand has an automatic lock on it.

This 100%. We did get a sizable number of delegates but without momentum that's gonna run dry. We do have the 'hardcore supporters' but it's casual voters that win you elections. All the Paulbots pride themselves for being skeptics and being skeptical of politicians, and while we know that Ron Paul didn't write those newsletters, the campaign's defense against them was WEAK, yet all these 'skeptics' are asking the general populace to just take Ron Paul's word that he didn't write them "I didn't write them, I knew nothing about them, I'm not racist, I disavow them (ps I'm a politician running for president DURRR).

Going into Iowa, I was positive that the campaign had the perfect way to handle the newsletter situation and they were just WAITING to use that when we attacks started flooding in. We were the supposed winner of Iowa and fuck it 'just being a strawpoll'. That would've sent a message into election cycle. If we had Iowa, we would've gotten NH and would've been unstoppable. It truly is the campaign's weak efforts to deal with the newsletters leading up to Iowa that killed all the momentum.

 

[pawlpawl]

Im taking my ball...and Im going home.


Lols

Anyways, it was a tough fight. Our chances have dwindled to near impossible levels. If this thing could be won based on the most dedicated supporters, wed win by a landslide.

Alas, its a numbers game regulated by payed off refs. You guys can blame many things, all of which cpntributed to our loss. Before slamming the campaign, keep in mind the uphill battle we fought against the media...that was our loss biggest factor for losing.

We did our thing, we fought tooth and nail for what we believe in. Dont let this campaigns end stop you from spreading the good word of freedom. When Obama or Romney takes office and nothing happens, explain to onlookers why they are bad presidents. Educate people. We didnt win, but you cannot count out the numbers we pulled compared to last election. Whenever a candidate rises only to fail in office, we have proof of why they should have listened, and why they must listen in the future.


Ron Paul did not enter this race to win it all, he entered it to shake this nation up in all the right ways. He did it so you and I could open our blind eyes and hear through deaf ears.


One day when our country is truly restored, be it tomorrow or 50 years from now...remember the man who sparked the fire of freedom for this country.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Just listened to Romney's speech - all rhetoric and no substance.

YES, Romney has no issues, the ONLY reason he's been leading is because he's "electable" & "can beat Obama" while Ron Paul is seen as "unelectable" & Paul-supporters & the campaign have done very little to establish Ron as MORE ELECTABLE & ANTI-OBAMA when in fact Ron IS gop's ONLY chance at beating Obama because Ron is the "peace-candidate" & pro-civil-liberties, which will significantly undercut Obama's base

So why has this CORE ISSUE OF ELECTABILITY AGAINST OBAMA has been continuously ignored by Paul-supporters & campaign, DESPITE the fact that the leading candidate is winning purely on the basis of his "electability"?