Who do we WANT to win Florida?

[jtbraine]

dfssdfsdf

 

[jolynna]

For every reason people do not want Obama to be re-elected, we don't want Mitt Romney elected.

The same people who bought Obama and turned Obama from being anti-war into a blood-thirsty murderer of brown-skinned people bought Romney. Obama has done MORE than any other president to take away liberties, conducting whistleblower prosecutions, covert war & civil liberty assault (continuing Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA, ACTA) and has EVEN called the constitution, flawed and outdated. Romney said OUT LOUD in a debate that he SUPPORTS those measures. He also is on the record as being the most pro-war and has been the MOST specific in outlining how he would add MORE active duty troops (100,000), build more planes and build more ships.

WHY would Romney want MORE US GDP to BE SPENT on military? Sounds to me like somebody is expecting LOTS of WAR.

Obama was chosen because he lacked moral compass. Romney was bought for the same reason.

The financial institutes are sitting on a big bubble that could explode at any point. It is only a matter of time. And look who bought Romney. It is on opensecrets.com.

Santorum or Gingerich have NO MORE CHANCE of being elected than me.

Romney and Obama are "who" the powers in charge have chosen. Romney or Obama can be counted on should the world financially collapse. They'll keep their "buyers"--the (failed and insolvent) BANKS BAILED OUT & PROPPED UP on the taxpayers backs. Obama and Romney are the banker's safety nets so no criminal banker will ever go to jail or be held responsible for their actions.

Romney and Obama weren't bought because the bankers think they are smart business men. They were bought because they can lie smoothly and have no ethics.

In a contest between Romney and ANYBODY, I choose the ANYBODY, because I want the powers in charge to sweat. I want them to have SOME tinge of worry that they might not get their way...that they aren't safe. Which isn't an endorsement of Gingerich. Or mean I don't think he is a cheating dirty dog. As a disposed-of first wife, I have NO love for that man.

I LOVE Ron Paul. I think he and his ideals are the ONLY chance this country has. Now or in the future. Romney is the absolute POLAR opposite to EVERY SINGLE ONE of Ron Paul's principles. I wish there a way Ron Paul could win next November.

Short of that, hoping for lots of moments when people in high places WORRY and FEEL SOME DISCOMFORT...like when Gingerich beat Romney in SC or when Santorum ended up beating Romney in Iowa...give me SOME pleasure and even hope that a little light might be coming through and that SOMEBODY is waking up and rebelling. Even when people rebel for the wrong reasons, it makes me feel better when the sheep getting drug toward the slaughter house struggle and drag their slaughterers down into the mud along the way.

For all of the above stated reasons...my answer to the thread question is Gingerich.

IMO

 

[Edward]

Newt. He can't win the nomination bc he isn't on the ballot in places like Va or Missouri.

Newt because he is not on enough ballots to win the nomination anyway.

RPF folklore. Gingrich may not be on the ballot in a couple states, but there are still enough delegates out there for him to take the nomination if his train gets rolling. He is unelectable in a general election, though.

 

[Athan]

I want Ron Paul ot win Florida, OP.

 

[bbwarfield]

Newt needs something to prop him up once a month....other wise hes back to single digits.... a florida win will keep him hitting but two or three more debates and hes gone if he cant reshape the discussion.... Romney will never attend a one on one with Paul.... if he does one it would be the last i promise

 

[jolynna]

I want Ron Paul ot win Florida, OP.

I want Ron Paul to win too.

But the thread question was if someone has to come before him, would I rather it be Romney or Gingerich. I choose anybody but Romney because Romney is the antithesis of everything of Ron Paul for--on every single issue. Romney is the one the media and everybody in charge is trying to shove down our throats.

Gingerich is unelectable. But, his followers are staunch grass-roots types, who might prefer Ron Paul's ideals of being "left alone" without a lot of regulation to Romney's pro-bank, pro-LOTS-of-government, pro MORE taxes (cause the bankrupt big banks who funded Romney's campaign are going to need bailing out and propping up). Personally, I don't think civilians need assault weapons, so I don't mind that Romney wants to take them away from us. But, my husband thinks it is his right to have assault weapons if he wants them. So, I've got to think there are LOTS of other NRA guys Ron Paul could pick up on that issue too that are now supporting Gingerich.

The only reason I think ANYBODY is choosing Romney, is because they have been fooled into thinking he is safe. They don't realize how much of a war hawk he is.

Wall Street chose him, and people associate Wall Street with being good with business and smart with money. Unless they've done the research they don't know they got robbed into trillions of dollars of taxes to keep criminals "comfortable". THE AVERAGE PERSON doesn't have a clue that Wall Street went down because the bankers were BAD investors and that some were even crooked when they knowingly mixed toxic mortgage backed stuff with AAA stuff to be MORE competitive with online sites selling stocks. MOST equate Wall Street with capitalism and ALL capitalism with good not realizing that by that definition Bernie Madoff was a GREAT capitalist.

Romney is right to defend capitalism. BUT capitalism and riches achieved through IMMORAL banking practices ( everything that brought down Lehman was legal) and through crooked political dealings like insider trading (also legal) are WRONG even IF technically legal. Using other people and knowingly taking advantage of them should NOT be defended. Just like allowing drones and bombs to kill innocent civilians might be legal but also immoral. As Dr. Paul said..."the golden rule".

Mitt Romney is Gordan Gekko and George W. Bush combined. A VERY, VERY dangerous man. IMO

 

[Elwar]

Newt.

Romney has loads and loads of cash.

Last quarter Newt was in the hole.

Money wins. Romney has money.

So does Ron Paul.

 

[RonPaulMyPresident]

Gingrich because spreading the delegates is better than having most of the delegates go to one person.

 

[AZ Libertarian]

Santorum out NEXT

Then Get Gingrich Gone

Stomp ass in Virginia!

 

[pacelli]

Newt because he is not on enough ballots to win the nomination anyway.

I'm going to change my mind.

I've been thinking about this for a long time since the question was posted.

I WANT Ron Paul to win, but I'd settle for a Santorum win. This gives him enough delegates to take away from Romney, but he is more poorly funded than Newt. I think for Paul to get the nomination, Santorum is the best person to win Florida.

He won't have traction past Florida, and there's a chance that Newt will actually go on to the convention, just like Paul.

I think the media and the powers-that-be are pushing for a 3-man race (DESPITE THE DELEGATE ISSUE W/NEWT). Your average voter doesn't know what in the hell a "delegate" is let alone what a delegate does, or the role they play in the process.

So they'll play up a 2-3 man race during the nomination process (giving Paul occasional coverage, while Newt and Romney eat up most of the air-time and debate-time).

This is what we're up against. I think this is "their" plan.

 

[pacelli]

Santorum out NEXT

Then Get Gingrich Gone

Stomp ass in Virginia!

We need to stomp ass strategically!!

 

[PolicyReader]

Romney has a 95% chance to win Florida on intrade. It's not even a question as to who will win.

Do not trust the odds makers, Willard was over 88% chance to win SC with the published reasoning that he'd then get the pump he needed to hit 95% for Florida and Nevada due to his projected win in South Carolina.

So now he's lost SC and still has the same projections in FL, humm. Besides which the historical play book is already out the window on this one, new rules in the nominating contest, new historical precedents, social media coming more into its own. The list goes on but the short version is the book makers are taking a bath on this one (regardless of who ends up winning at the convention).

So while I agree it's looking more like Willard will take FL the odds makers aren't good data to be drawing from.

 

[PaleoPaul]

Do not trust the odds makers, Willard was over 88% chance to win SC with the published reasoning that he'd then get the pump he needed to hit 95% for Florida and Nevada due to his projected win in South Carolina.

So now he's lost SC and still has the same projections in FL, humm. Besides which the historical play book is already out the window on this one, new rules in the nominating contest, new historical precedents, social media coming more into its own. The list goes on but the short version is the book makers are taking a bath on this one (regardless of who ends up winning at the convention).

So while I agree it's looking more like Willard will take FL the odds makers aren't good data to be drawing from.

Um, the only two reasons why Newt won SC were because he insulted John King and because of that ABC special that aired that night.

 

[PolicyReader]

Um, the only two reasons why Newt won SC were because he insulted John King and because of that ABC special that aired that night.

Point?

 

[PaleoPaul]

Point?

If those two situations never occurred, Mitt would have won South Carolina, or Newt would have won, but with a very small margin.

 

[PolicyReader]

If those two situations never occurred, Mitt would have won South Carolina, or Newt would have won, but with a very small margin.

I don't see how this addresses the various elements I brought up.
This is still a race with new rules, differing delegate values per state, breaking of historical precedents, most integrated social media presence so far, unusually high voter volatility, etc the list goes on. Furthermore many of the 'odds makers' draw data from polling and polling data has many flaws due to it's methodologies (as an example being able to call only landlines), another major source of information for odds makers is historical patterns which are less relevant in this election than they have been in quite some time. I'm not sure how the margin of victory in SC really addresses any of that.

 

[TheCaliforniaLife]

It's difficult to choose. I want Newt to win so that way when we go to convention, some of those delegates can go to Ron Paul as the anti-Romney vote. I also want Romney to win because I want Newt to dwindle down and let Ron Paul come up as the anti-Romney. If Newt loses steam, he might end up endorsing Mitt and it will fuel the political sphere to force Ron Paul out and demean his continuing candidacy as being a sore loser. The media will then pick up on the "We need to end the bickering and focus on beating Obama rather than ourselves." Its a Catch 22.

 

[TheCaliforniaLife]

What could also happen is that if Gingrich wins and slows down Romney, it might bring disaffected republicans over to Ron Paul. I noticed that while doing phone banking that a lot of people like Ron Paul as their second choice.

 

[Suzu]

Clearly Newt,

He isn't on the ballot in enough states to win. Every delegate he takes is one less that Romney gets.

Until he drops out and endorses Romney....

 

[PolicyReader]

Until he drops out and endorses Romney....

That may effect who his supporters vote for in upcoming states but it doesn't give Romney is delegates they become "unbound" and can vote as each of them chooses at the national convention.