Jump to content

Republican 2012 Nomination Thread


Texsox

Recommended Posts

Vote early, vote often

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-p...,0,725479.story

 

A wild card that could tip the state to Santorum: an effort by Democrats to embarrass Romney in his native state. Any registered voter can participate in the Republican primary, and Democrats have been informed by their party’s state chairman that they are welcome to do so and still participate in Democratic caucuses later this year that will select delegates to the national convention.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 27, 2012 -> 11:20 AM)
Well the Dem caucus is meaningless this year, but that statement does implicitly endorse voting in the Republican primary.

 

Meaningless, but it still would be one vote. You still have the right to vote in the other race if you deem your own parties race as "meaningless". Voting in both is two votes IMO. I can't see how it isn't illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 27, 2012 -> 11:23 AM)
Meaningless, but it still would be one vote. You still have the right to vote in the other race if you deem your own parties race as "meaningless". Voting in both is two votes IMO. I can't see how it isn't illegal.

 

It's not an official election, though, it's independent entities determining their candidates. I'm not sure how much the law really comes into play for primaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 27, 2012 -> 11:23 AM)
Meaningless, but it still would be one vote. You still have the right to vote in the other race if you deem your own parties race as "meaningless". Voting in both is two votes IMO. I can't see how it isn't illegal.

Because it is two seperate elections. I am actually a supporter of being able to vote in primary elections for any and all parties, for all voters.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 27, 2012 -> 01:24 PM)
Because it is two seperate elections. I am actually a supporter of being able to vote in primary elections for any and all parties, for all voters.

 

If I did the same thing in Indiana, I'd be committing a crime. It is the same in most states. You pick one ballot, not both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 27, 2012 -> 01:26 PM)
If I did the same thing in Indiana, I'd be committing a crime. It is the same in most states. You pick one ballot, not both.

Actually there are a number of states that can do both. But my whole point is, it should not be a crime, in fact it should be encouraged. I think of it as a run-off system.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 11:02 AM)
Michigan is going to be down to the wire:

RCP Averages -

Romeny - 37.3

Santorum - 35.8

Paul - 13.0

Gingrich - 10.3

Spread: Romney +1.5

Here's a fun topic... if by convention time, Romney doesn't have a true majority of delegates, and they enter a brokered convention... could anyone see the other three candidates getting behind one among them? I just don't see Ron Paul jumping on board with ANYONE, and Gingrich is similar that way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 11:05 AM)
Here's a fun topic... if by convention time, Romney doesn't have a true majority of delegates, and they enter a brokered convention... could anyone see the other three candidates getting behind one among them? I just don't see Ron Paul jumping on board with ANYONE, and Gingrich is similar that way.

 

We will see who the true coalition builders are at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 11:07 AM)
There's been some navel-gazing lately that Paul is setting up himself up for the Romney VP spot. He's attacked all of Romney's opponents in the debates but never really Romney himself.

 

It would balance the ticket with a real Tea Party acceptable guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 11:49 AM)

 

I prefaced that post with "real" for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 12:07 PM)
There's been some navel-gazing lately that Paul is setting up himself up for the Romney VP spot. He's attacked all of Romney's opponents in the debates but never really Romney himself.

Could you seriously imagine the grilling Ron Paul would get in the general? It'd make the Sarah Palin CBS interview debacle look tame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 01:19 PM)
Ron Paul has plenty of terrible ideas but he's never struck me as a complete and utter moron.

No one's really forcing him to defend those terrible ideas (or statements, or newsletters, etc.) right now, because no one believes he has a shot at anything, and they're correct. You put him in a place where he is a legitimate threat to become President of the United States and actually have the power to do things like destroy the Federal Reserve, and suddenly he's going to have to defend each and every one of those ideas.

 

If that happens, I might as well start my own anti-Paul SuperPAC, because battering him would be so easy it wouldn't take that much effort and I could forever establish myself as a multi-million-dollar political operative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 28, 2012 -> 11:54 AM)
I prefaced that post with "real" for a reason.

What you really mean is a "real" Libertarian, or close to it. The Tea Party as established by its current set of leadership and the people who identify as such, has departed from that significantly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...