Mitt Romney's Cash Problem

[Godmode7]

Maybe he would have more money if he didn't make all those fake grassroots signs lol

 

[PolicyReader]

Indeed

 

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Point of clarity they can only give to a Romney PAC (beyond the max for personal donations). Yes this is still money that will go towards supporting Romney but it's not equivalent to having actual campaign funds in his official coffers.

Yes, the million-dollar mega-donations will go to PACs, but there will also be bundlers collecting max donations for his campaign. If Romney is seen as inevitable, the call to rally behind the nominee will begin and that money will begin rolling in. The anti-Obama hype will get ratcheted up and smaller donors will join the effort to beat him.

More generally, with 1187 delegates up for grabs...

<snip>

...how such a thing has a realistic probability of actually happening I'm open to reading links if posted.

You took those numbers too literally. I assumed that "800-100" was plucked out of the air and I went with it for the sake of argument. The point is, it could come down to a situation where Romney is so far ahead in delegates that it is very difficult to catch him. I don't want it to come to that.

Additional: Since Paul clearly has taken a number of swings at Romney at various points during this race, and in light of Three of a Kind which clearly attacks Romney and bundles him in with the others as a in it for himself big government politician, I'm wondering what specifically would qualify as 'attacking Romney' enough that those who are calling for attacks on Romney would feel satisfied? And what shapes would those attacks take specifically? (And is right before more southern states come up really the time to focus on hitting Romney rather than others in the race that are in many ways positioned to do better if they're not dealt with?)

It may be too late to do anything in debates, but the attacks would come in the same form they have in the past, interviews and ads specifically targeting Mitt. Mitt hasn't been singled out for criticism, and everybody has noticed the Paul campaign has been softer on him. Dr. Paul hasn't called him anything close to a "fake" or a "hypocrite".

WRT southern states, Newt is the least threat right now, so I don't see that as a concern. If he takes delegates away from Romney that helps us.

Why is everyone saying to attack Mitt Romney?? Makes no sense. His supporters would simply go to Frothy or Grinch.

Santorum and Gingrich are the weaker candidates. I prefer going against one of them rather than Romney. Both of them have been bloodied in this primary, and barely anyone has laid a glove on Romney.

 

[PolicyReader]

You are correct more momentum does lead to further donations, I was just trying to be clear because I've seen some people on these forums who don't know the difference between PAC money and PCC money.

I'm interested in what you'd say are reasonable actual numbers for a Romney lead and how you'd see that playing out in the coming contests.
I think Romney is vulnerable and while he's a strong contender his "inevitability" is a sham. That however is based on my reading so I'm quite open to more sources and information (I don't think my understanding is the end all and be all of political discussion )

re: Romney attacks, so in essence a satisfactory level of attack on Willard would be calling him out individually (am I understanding that correctly?). It is true that Paul has 'only' called him a flip-flopper and a big government republican while calling Santo a fake and Newt a chickenhawk and serial hypocrite. But Paul has also been saying they are the same (witness Three of a Kind being his most used ad this cycle). Those are all things (and there are others like them) where Paul has called Willard out but if the needed threshold is singling him out rather than just calling him out then I can agree that Paul hasn't really done that.

Newt/Santo are both stronger in the south and Mitt, and while Newt is clearly the weakest in the race right now he wasn't exactly soaring going into SC either, and how was Santorum looking before the night of his three state dash? The point is this race isn't on lock so to my way of thinking blunting the momentum of whoever is coming up on a strong position makes sense (for example during the swing through the northeasten state bloc I'd focus more on bringing Romney down).

From watching the debates/other broadcasts I really don't agree that no one had blooded Romney, I think that his damage hasn't gained much traction in the corporate media but that's hardly the same thing.
Mr. $10,000 bet, mr. just under 15% tax rate, mr. "I don't care about the poor" who likes to tell people that ask him about 'the 99%' that "American is right and you are wrong",
Willard "I believe anyone talking about finical reform is doing it out of envy" Romney. Has plenty of open wounds they're just not being publicized as much, consider how often he attacks "Obamacare" when he's responsible for the road map? Newt gets burned for doing an add with a Democrat but the media isn't talking about how Willard changes political stances more often than he changes his hair.
The line of thinking from the Paul camp, as I understand it, is essentially get the two most exposed candidates out of the race, become the anti-Romney and start forcing the comparison of Willard to Paul. I guess what I'm saying is if there is a compelling reason to break from this long established stratagem mid-stream and go another way what reason(s) would those be?

Regardless thanks for responding, I do like a good discussion

I'll close with this

Romney is vulnerable if we push now going into WA and Super Tuesday things could be blown wide open.

Sign up as a delegate
Donate to the Current Moneybomb
[url="http://phone.ronpaul2012.com/v/faq.php]Phone From Home[/url]

lets make some waves!

 

[speciallyblend]

I mostly agree with the "Anti-Romney" strategy, but that strategy works best when it works early. To take it to extreme, what happens if we do become the lone anti-Romney candidate while the delegate count is 800-100 in favor of Romney? He'll be too far ahead for it to matter. I think the only way to be the anti-Romney is to FIRST win a contest, somewhere... and THEN force the other two idiots out of the race. Without a win, you and I are as much of THE anti-Romney as Paul is... sadly.

There is no substitute for winning, none. And it's obvious that money is getting tighter with all the camps, so why spend a dime in MI or AZ, why? Hit Washington hard and it helps win the race and fill the bank.

the anti-romney strategy gets completed at convention. bottom line is even if romney is first and we are second in delegate count or 3rd. We can WIN. newt and santorum are dead men walking and by the time convetion comes. We are the anti-romney and romney will be destroyed. The gop will have 2 options at convention. Nominate Ron paul or elect Obama! You will see more romney attacks as the dead men walking drop out! In the end it comes down to romney or paul. Romney will get destroyed by obama in a debate. first general debate topic romneycare Ron Paul 2012 Wins or the gop elects obama!

 

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

I'm interested in what you'd say are reasonable actual numbers for a Romney lead and how you'd see that playing out in the coming contests.

I don't know. It's hard to know exactly what the delegate count is now, much less predicting the future, so I don't spend any time trying to figure it out. I just know that Romney is far ahead of Dr. Paul in the reported counts and likely to widen that lead as we go along.

re: Romney attacks, so in essence a satisfactory level of attack on Willard would be calling him out individually (am I understanding that correctly?). It is true that Paul has 'only' called him a flip-flopper and a big government republican while calling Santo a fake and Newt a chickenhawk and serial hypocrite. But Paul has also been saying they are the same (witness Three of a Kind being his most used ad this cycle). Those are all things (and there are others like them) where Paul has called Willard out but if the needed threshold is singling him out rather than just calling him out then I can agree that Paul hasn't really done that.

Yes, singling a candidate out for criticism has been very effective for Ron Paul so far. The "one-man wrecking machine" nickname was accurate. He's taken down Perry, Bachmann, Newt, and Santorum with relatively minimal attacks compared to the bickering the other candidates have been doing. Grouping Romney in with the rest of the field isn't effective IMO. We have to focus our fire with specific details about Mitt's record, and hopefully shed light on some new dirt.

Newt/Santo are both stronger in the south and Mitt, and while Newt is clearly the weakest in the race right now he wasn't exactly soaring going into SC either, and how was Santorum looking before the night of his three state dash? The point is this race isn't on lock so to my way of thinking blunting the momentum of whoever is coming up on a strong position makes sense (for example during the swing through the northeasten state bloc I'd focus more on bringing Romney down).

I feel Romney is the main threat and the one everybody will most likely hold their nose and support (unless we do something). Newt and Rick scare too many people. With limited resources, we have to use them on our most dangerous opponent. Even Obama is focusing his attacks on Romney, so you know who they think the likely winner is.

From watching the debates/other broadcasts I really don't agree that no one had blooded Romney, I think that his damage hasn't gained much traction in the corporate media but that's hardly the same thing.
Mr. $10,000 bet, mr. just under 15% tax rate, mr. "I don't care about the poor" who likes to tell people that ask him about 'the 99%' that "American is right and you are wrong",
Willard "I believe anyone talking about finical reform is doing it out of envy" Romney. Has plenty of open wounds they're just not being publicized as much, consider how often he attacks "Obamacare" when he's responsible for the road map? Newt gets burned for doing an add with a Democrat but the media isn't talking about how Willard changes political stances more often than he changes his hair.

Those are his own gaffes though, not attacks coming from others. We need to pile it on as much as possible.

The line of thinking from the Paul camp, as I understand it, is essentially get the two most exposed candidates out of the race, become the anti-Romney and start forcing the comparison of Willard to Paul. I guess what I'm saying is if there is a compelling reason to break from this long established stratagem mid-stream and go another way what reason(s) would those be?

I've been making the argument to get Romney out of the race and become the anti-Santorum! I don't like the strategy of making this Ron Paul vs. Romney anymore. That made sense in early January, but things haven't gone as planned and we need to shift our strategy.

Again, my reasoning is: take out the tough opponent now and face the weaker guy head-to-head. That's possible now with Newt and Rick still in...we can combine our attacks on Romney. If by some miracle, Newt and Rick dropped out tomorrow, I think we'd be steamrolled by Romney. He's just too strong and has too many advantages for us to beat him as it is. I only see that getting worse as this process continues and he runs away with the delegate count.