Home » What we think we know: Romney and Michigan

Comments

What we think we know: Romney and Michigan — 24 Comments

  1. The pundits who are picking, choosing, and making toast really have no more of an idea what will happen than we do. In this campaign season, two days is an eternity.

  2. It is indeed an unfair rap on Romney and shows the power of suggestion. Most people really don’t know that much about politics, but, oh yeah, I do have that hazy recollection that Romney and Michigan are connected somehow. Well, he ought to win there. That’s right, his Dad was governor of that state. Enough for me. He’s been having problems his whole campaign, can’t even win the state his Dad was governor of. Sheesh. He’s toast.

  3. Checking in from Michigan. Word in the local press is that angry Democrat union members will “go Republican” to vote for Santorum in the primaries because 1) he can’t win against Obama and 2) it will send a message to Romney.

    So if Santorum wins because the more rural/conservative areas swing his way, it’s already written out as fake – a mere reaction to Romney. FYI a Michiganian doesn’t need to swear fealty to a political party; he just needs to choose only one primary ballot. I know dozens of Democrats who voted in the Republican primary last time around because the DMC negated the primaries. It’s unclear if they helped McCain or not.

  4. MissJean: so you’re saying it’s a completely open primary. I hadn’t realized that.

    It’s an invitation to sabotage the results, especially when only one party is holding a meaningful primary. Democrats lose absolutely nothing by crossing over, since they don’t need to vote in their own primary to decide anything. They can mess with the Republican primary at will.

    What a stupid system.

  5. With Santorum giving speeches about Satan the Dems must be salivating at going up against him in the general election. That guy does not have an operating speech filter.

  6. I agree, neo. The straw man that Romney’s home state is Michigan is obvious when subjected to some cogent analysis. It is spin, pure and simple. My belief is that the MSM and DNC are orchestrating as much spin and divisiveness in the Republican field as they can. And the right wing media – Fox, conservative talk radio, and many conservative blogs get caught up in it.

    Now the idea of a brokered convention or the entry of some new “white knight” candidate is being bandied about. It’s embarrassing that we let them get away with it.

  7. This politics stuff is like the automobile wreck from which we fallible humans have trouble turning our gaze. I’m wearied by it but I keep coming back for more.

    I thoroughly understand and support your need for diversion. I’m glad you’re sharing with us whatever comes to you. You go for it, young lady . . .

  8. Oooops — I posted a reply to the wrong post. Bah. I will post it to the correct post. Sorry, everyone, for the non-sequitur here.

  9. JJ, according to Ulsterman’s White House Insider that’s exactly what’s happening and is one of the main reasons for the various non-Romney candidate rise and falls. Called “Pump-and-Dump” in the consultant trade.

  10. Romney is weak in the primaries because he is not in his bones a true fiscal conservative and presents a rather bland personality. However, Santorum, the current non-Mitt, is less of a fiscal conservative than Romney. He’s a social conservative and in the general election that is a non-starter. Newt is the ultimate DC insider which makes his claims to be otherwise the stuff of a SNL skit.

    When the campaign began Pawlenty and Daniels seemed to have a decent chance but one never threw his hat in the ring and the other quickly faded. Then Palin declined to run. Gary Johnson (a fiscally conservative libertarian) was ‘too radical’ for the base. Cain was my choice but he folded under unsubstantiated allegations. Bachmann was a wild card at best and faded quickly. Perry stumbled and mumbled. Which leaves us with Ron Paul who many see as the bat caca crazy uncle at the thanksgiving table, although RP understands the economic fundamentals better than all who remain standing.

    Which take us back to Romney. Its a sorry state of affairs considering how vulnerable BHO is counting down to November that we have no ‘champion’ ready to knock BHO off his high horse. Concentrate on the House and Senate. Send your money to those races and let the eventual GOP nominee raise his own cash.

  11. Good summary Parker. I believed it was going to be Perry until he had to endure mocking for his less than masterful debate prowess. I’ll bet he could still have put all of them in a headlock and that’s way more important! Now, who would have won between Perry and Obama in a wrasslin match. C’mon. Silly question.

  12. I’d like to start a poll. Up or down on a man’s sanity if he believes in Satan?

    I’m up.

    Go Satan. (Oops, that didn’t quite come out right.)

  13. I’m an agnostic, and more than a little peeved at the open disdain that Santorum has shown for libertarians, but the OMG!!! THEOCRACY!!!!11!!! crowd needs to take a chill pill. Seriously, Bible-believing Christians don’t frighten me.

    I’d still prefer him over Romney, who I don’t trust as far as I can throw.

  14. An agnostic went into a bar and got drunk.

    No he didn’t.

    Humour.

    Okay, so no Satan for you, rickl, which might just make Halloween less meaningful, but, you fear the Obama crazies more than the Santorum crazies.

    I’m with you.

    Hey you know who were some pretty heavy Satan believers: Kepler who was pretty smart. Boyle. Faraday. Kelvin. etcetera. et.cet.er.rah!

  15. Okay, why did the agnostic not get drunk?

    He didn’t know. Couldn’t judge. Found himself on the floor. With fudge.

    Ooooh.

  16. “Now, who would have won between Perry and Obama in a wrasslin match.”

    My 8 year old grand daughter could take down mannish boy Barry in less than 5 seconds so I vote Perry. 😉

  17. “I’d still prefer him over Romney, who I don’t trust as far as I can throw.”

    This might be a valuable standard for judging candidates in that the candidate Rickl can throw the farthest is the least desirable candidate. BTW, is this going to be measured in inches, feet, yards, or miles?

  18. Neo, I see I’m a little late to this thread, but you’re absolutely correct about the Romney/Michigan connection. I think I’m the same age you are, pretty much a lifelong resident of MI, and I can barely remember the Romney years. Most of the primary voters will have NO memory of George Romney. The political pundit/news media conventional wisdom about Mitt’s relationship with MI is wrong, as usual.
    Yes, our primary is open to all voters, so who knows what the results will indicate. I’m sure lots of Dems will be pulling the lever for Santorum as they push the “Taliban Rick” meme. I’ll be voting for Mitt by the way.

  19. Parker Says:
    February 22nd, 2012 at 12:08 am

    This might be a valuable standard for judging candidates in that the candidate Rickl can throw the farthest is the least desirable candidate.

    I doubt that I could throw any politician any appreciable distance, so I guess I can’t trust any of them.

    That sounds about right, actually.

  20. Neo, sorry it’s taken a while for me to respond, but it’s really NOT a stupid system. By not having to register with a party, it prevented Democrats (and before them the American Party aka No-Nothings) from interfering in voting in my great-grandfather’s day (although he was blocked from citizenship for several years by the Dems literacy test). In the ’20s, it kept the KKK from knowing the exact numbers of their opposition when they attempted to take several public offices.

    The primaries aren’t completely open now.; they’re partisan primaries. We have never had a successful raid, probably because the parties anticipate a raid and go overboard in getting their known members to turn out. And if you vote in a party’s primary, that party gets your name, address and phone number and bothers you for the next four years, which is why my Democratic co-workers don’t listen to our union’s pleas to show up at the polls unless it’s our state primaries. Despite high turnouts – in the 2002 primaries more than 27% of registered voters participated and it’s gone up until the last presidential primaries which most people stayed home for – we’ve never had a Tuttle moment, if you know what I mean.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>