Republican Presidential Primary
The field seems to be so wide open right now.
I like to ponder such things early and then after somebody wins, I come back and read what people thought and see how that turned out to be right, or how it turned out that there were other things to consider.
The Contenders (that I'm aware of):
MITT ROMNEY - establishment candidate
RICK SANTORUM - true conservative candidate
NEWT GINGRICH - neoconservative
RON PAUL- small government conservative
FRED KARGER - more info as it is available (who am I kidding? I'm never gonna look this guy up) OK I finally looked him up - Founder of Californians Against Hate, gay rights activist, former adviser to Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Ford.
MICHELE BACHMANN
JON HUNTSMAN
HERMAN CAIN -
RICK PERRY -
LEADING VEEP PICKS
- Herman Cain - see above
-Bobby Jindal - governor of Louisiana
Bob McDonnell - governor of Virginia
-Jim DeMint - senator from South Carolina
-Chris Christie - governor of New Jersey
-Paul Ryan - representative from Wisconsin
-Allen West - representative from Florida
-Rob Portman - senator from Ohio
Marco Rubio - newly elected Senator from Florida
Nikki Haley - governor of South Carolina
Tim Pawlenty - former governor of Minnesota
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GARY JOHNSON - Gary Johnson is now running on the Libertarian ticket
BUDDY ROEMER - Buddy Roemer is now seeking the nomination of the 3rd party group Americans Elect
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Note - names are bolded, italicized and underlined if they have formed an exploratory committee to run for president
All caps means they have announced their candidacy
Strikethrough means they have stated they will not run for president
(I re-ordered them to put those with hats in the ring at the top, then those who still have exploratory committees, and then the no-thank-you's)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
PRIMARY RESULTS
01/03/2012 ~ Iowa Caucus
Romney 24.6%; Santorum 24.5%; Paul 21.4%
Santorum won after a recount, by 34 votes
Santorum 24.6%; Romney 24.5%; Paul 21.4%
01/10/2012 ~ New Hampshire Primary
Romney 39.3%; Paul 22.9%; Huntsman 16.9%
01/21/2012 ~ South Carolina Primary
Gingrich 40.4%; Romney 27.8%; Santorum 17.0%
01/31/2012 ~ Florida Primary
Romney 46.4%; Gingrich 31.9%; Santorum 13.4%
02/04/2012 ~ Nevada Caucus
Romney 50.0%; Gingrich 21.1%; Paul 18.7%
02/07/2012 ~ Colorado Caucus
Santorum 40.2%; Romney 34.9%; Gingrich 12.8%
02/07/2012 ~ Minnesota Caucus
Santorum 44.8%; Paul 27.2%; Romney 16.9%
02/07/2012 ~ Missouri Primary (non-binding)
Santorum 55.2%; Romney 25.3%; Paul 12.2%
02/04/2012-02/11/2012 ~ Maine Caucus
Results still pending!
02/28/2012 ~ Arizona Primary
Romney 47.3%; Santorum 26.6%; Gingrich 16.2%
02/28/2012 ~ Michigan Primary
Romney 41.1%; Santorum 37.9%; Paul 11.6%
02/29/2012 ~ Wyoming Caucuses
Romney 39%; Santorum 33%; Paul 20%
03/03/2012 ~ Washington Caucus
Romney 37.6%; Paul 24.8%; Santorum 23.8%
03/06/2012 ~ Super Tuesday
Alaska Caucus
Romney 32.4%; Santorum 29.2%; Paul 24%
Georgia Primary
Gingrich 47.2%; Romney 25.9%; Santorum 19.6%
Idaho Caucus
Romney 61.6%; Santorum 18.2%; Paul 18.1%
Massachusetts Primary
Romney 72.2%; Santorum 12%; Paul 9.5%
North Dakota Caucus
Santorum 39.7%; Paul 28.1%; Romney 23.7
Oklahoma Primary
Santorum 33.8%; Romney 28%; Gingrich 27.5%
Tennessee Primary
Santorum 37.2%; Romney 28.1%; Gingrich 23.9%
Texas Primary - postponed til May 29
Vermont Primary
Romney 39.8%; Paul 25.5%; Santorum 23.7%
Virginia Primary
Romney 59.5%; Paul 40.5%
-4/24/12
A very good point. Better the Devil you know.
Well...I've reconsidered. I'm supporting Gingrich now. He's promising $2.50/gallon gasoline under his watch...
**Please disregard the fact that he touts himself as a conservative yet i pushing an agenda that will require Federal governmental intervention into the private sector**
GAWD Republicans (and Dems for that matter) lap this **** up, don't they? And you folks wonder why I refer to Americans as Automatons? LOL!
He's not nutso...We are. We've got 'Mericans that believe this **** and don't have enough synapses to think it through.
We've got 'Mericans that support a candidate that wants to restrict porn...without a second thought about what that really means to a defunct piece of paper that some old fools wrote a bit over 200 years ago.
We are so screwed.
Original Post by kathygator:
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
OK, when in doubt, get more info...
When incumbent members of Congress from one party negatively campaign against the incumbents from the other party, it destroys the trust necessary to work together. The No Labels Solution: Incumbents from one party should not conduct negative campaigns against incumbents from the opposing party. That means no appearing in negative ads, no signing nasty direct mail letters and no traveling to an incumbent’s district or state to play attack dog. Members would, of course, be free to campaign or fundraise in support of candidates from their party.
I guess I'm fine with this. I'm not sure I realized it was a big problem, but sure, ok.
I bet what happens, is retaliation in the legislative process.
The RNC's campaign to unseat Nancy Pelosi comes to mind. They referenced her in negative campaign ads in many congressional races, if I remember correctly, races that had nothing directly to do with her, other than whether or not incumbents or candidates running in those races had or would 'work' with her.
How do you distinguish a negative ad from a critical ad? Or can you not run critical ads? Because I think that would be viewpoint based suppression of high value political speech, which would not survive strict scrutiny under a First Amendment challenge.
Agree. That's what I was thinking on the previous page about the definition of 'negative' being open for debate. I don't know that you can creditably limit negative campaign ads.
Fortunately, No Labels is an opinion movement, though, not a legislative body. I think there's value in expressing displeasure at the tenor of campaign ads, whether there's an actual law to limit speech or not.
Don't think they're suggesting making these 12 rules into laws - more of an agreed-on code of conduct - same as they have right now, only functional and allowing the work of the people to be done.
One of the best I've seen. We talk about the candidates and it is us crazy Americans that have tunnel vision and don't see outside the box. Just like in Washington DC, Mayor Marion Barry for example. We catch him smoking crack with a prostitute on camera, he does his time in jail and comes out and what do we do, we put him back in......not in jail but in office, wtf???!?!? I believe Mitt is another Obama. I go with Santorum.
I noticed in the OP, Nomo, that you're describing Santorum as a 'true conservative candidate'. I think I'd hesitate to describe him as anything other than a 'social conservative'. Thoughts?
I called him a 'true conservative' because that's what the people who are supporting him are calling him.
There's no such thing as a 'true conservative' or at least, the term itself is meaningless since the definition of conservative is not written in stone and anyone can claim that this or that makes you a true conservative.
Whoever conserves something is a conservative. The reason there's so much disagreement is that different people find it more important to conserve different things.
You're right, he's definitely a social conservative.
If you think I should change it, then I should probably change Newt's label too.
:)
Ah. Gotcha.
Yes. Please change Newt's label to opportunistic neo-con. kthx!
Opportunistic, indeed. Apparently, also not fond of paying his campaign bills. Douche-nozzel.
Original Post by kathygator:
I noticed in the OP, Nomo, that you're describing Santorum as a 'true conservative candidate'. I think I'd hesitate to describe him as anything other than a 'social conservative'. Thoughts?
I think Santorum is properly labeled a nutjob. #InMyHeart
Seems like today will put an end to it.
Now everybody can start getting over it and learn how to say, "Well he wasn't my first choice, but he's got to be better than _______" which is what everyone will say.
Except for Ron Paul supporters. They seem pretty stalwart.
Is that a more politically correct way of stating that we're not prostitutes?
If no one drops out, this thing will go on technically contested until at least the end of May. :D
Original Post by dnrothx:
If no one drops out, this thing will go on technically contested until at least the end of May. :D
I think if Newt's sugar daddy stops paying for him, he'll drop out. I also think his sugar daddy would be stupid to continue paying for him, based on the fact that he's only won 2 primaries.
Santorum might win enough remaining delegate to challenge Romney, but I think that only happens if he overhauls his message. He does get a point or two for trotting out his wife to speak for him and try to soothe ruffled chick feathers.
Original Post by dnrothx:
If no one drops out, this thing will go on technically contested until at least the end of May. :D
I think we just enjoy the spectacle of the contest.
I think we all know that it's Romney. Don't we?
Original Post by pinegrovedave:
Is that a more politically correct way of stating that we're not prostitutes?
Stalwart adj
: marked by outstanding strength and vigor of body, mind or spirit
synonyms:
courageous, fearless, gutsy, intrepid, stout, undaunted, valorous
Dave,
I said what I meant to say. So no, your interpretation is incorrect.
