Mitt Romney drops out

[Real]

Romney suspends campaign

They said on NBC News that a Romney campiagn aid said that he is done. You can all but seal John McCain in as the GOP nominee now.

Romney is going to announce at CPAC, which I would be going to since it's literally a few miles from my dorm, but I can't because I have work.

 

[CelticKing]

Romney to Quit Today

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Mitt Romney plans to drop out of the presidential race Thursday, according to Mark Halperin’s The Page blog for Time Magazine.

Halperin says three sources have confirmed that the former Massachusetts governor will drop out as early as this afternoon, when he addresses the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.

“The race was mathematically and politically mostly over before now,” Halperin told FOX News, citing McCain’s wide lead in the race for delegates to the national convention.

Romney has steadily lost ground over the past few weeks to McCain, who since Super Tuesday made a comeback for Romney extremely difficult.

McCain is leading Romney by more than 2-1 in the delegate count, and Romney also was losing ground to Mike Huckabee, who picked up nearly as many victories as him on Super Tuesday.

“One of the biggest barriers to Mitt Romney becoming the nominee was Mike Huckabee,” Halperin said. “I don’t think Huckabee stands much of a chance to overtake McCain either, but he certainly stood in Mitt Romney’s way.”</div>

 

[AEM]

...God damn it.

 

[Denny Crane]

So far the scenario I painted is coming to pass. McCain pretty much seals the nomination now and gets many months to beat up on Hillary/Obama. Meanwhile, those two beat up on each other

 

[downunderwonder]

Does it really matter though? Will the nation vote republican after the last disasterous term of George?

Plus on the same token if Obama and Clinton ran as pres and vice pres respectively on the same ticket, would middle america be ready for that?

 

[Denny Crane]

McCain will be raising money all that time, while the Democrats' donors will be split among the two candidates. McCain could be sitting pretty when the general election comes.

What's _really_ going on is McCain is so disliked by religious conservatives that they're more likely to stay home than go out and vote for him. The margin of victory for the Democrat could be pretty big, but the turnout could be low.

 

[AEM]

^ That makes Huckabee even more of a likely choice as his running mate. Ugh

 

[TheBeef]

So its a rhino vs. a succubus or an obamanation.....we are all screwed

 

[Moo2K4]

Honestly, I don't see this making much of a difference. After the disaster that has been G.W., I don't think the US is going to be looking to vote in another republican president. However, that could mean either a lot of republicans staying at home or a lot of people swallowing pride and voting for either the first female president or the first African American president.

 

[Shapecity]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Moo2K4 @ Feb 7 2008, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Honestly, I don't see this making much of a difference. After the disaster that has been G.W., I don't think the US is going to be looking to vote in another republican president. However, that could mean either a lot of republicans staying at home or a lot of people swallowing pride and voting for either the first female president or the first African American president.</div>

McCain isn't viewed as the typical "Republican" in the media even though he's been flat out lying during the debates.

I don't care for Romney either. I felt he was out of touch for the most part and too, robotic for me.

McCain and Huckabee played some dirty pool to get rid of Romney.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...t/national.html

<span style="color:#ff0000"><span style="color:#000000">Time Magazine Poll 02/01-02/04 958LV McCain 46% Clinton 46% Tie</span>
CNN Poll 02/01-02/03 974 RV McCain 47% Clinton 50% Clinton +3%</span>
<span style="color:#0000ff">Cook/RT Strategies Poll 01/31-02/02 855 RV McCain 45% Clinton 41% McCain +4%
ABC/Wash Post Poll 01/30-02/01 1249 A McCain 49% Clinton 46% McCain +3%
Fox News Poll 01/30-01/31 900 RV McCain 45% Clinton 44% McCain +1%
NPR Poll 01/29-01/31 1000 LV McCain 48% Clinton 45% McCain +3%
</span>

RealClearPolitics Average 01/29-02/04 McCain 46.7% Clinton 45.3% McCain +1.4%

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 7 2008, 09:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...t/national.html

<span style="color:#ff0000"><span style="color:#000000">Time Magazine Poll 02/01-02/04 958LV McCain 46% Clinton 46% Tie</span>
CNN Poll 02/01-02/03 974 RV McCain 47% Clinton 50% Clinton +3%</span>
<span style="color:#0000ff">Cook/RT Strategies Poll 01/31-02/02 855 RV McCain 45% Clinton 41% McCain +4%
ABC/Wash Post Poll 01/30-02/01 1249 A McCain 49% Clinton 46% McCain +3%
Fox News Poll 01/30-01/31 900 RV McCain 45% Clinton 44% McCain +1%
NPR Poll 01/29-01/31 1000 LV McCain 48% Clinton 45% McCain +3%
</span>

RealClearPolitics Average 01/29-02/04 McCain 46.7% Clinton 45.3% McCain +1.4%</div>

RV means Registered Voters, LV means Likely Voters. I tend to think the LV polls are more interesting.

These are national polls, they don't really say much about who'd win the national election. For that, you'd have to analyze the state-by-state polls and add up the likely electoral votes for each candidate.

The polls have been notoriously bad during the primaries. Poll taken the day before the NH Primary showed Obama up by a lot, he lost by a lot. This led Chris Matthews to suggest that the white voters in the northeast got in the voting box and voted against hte black guy. Obama was up big in California the day before the primary there, too. Go figure.

These national polls have a fairly long trend that can be followed. They're probably closer to accurate.

These polls do indicate a couple of things to me. McCain might just win the popular vote. And...
As much as you'd think Republicans might stay home and not vote McCain, Democrats and Independents seem to be not willing to vote for Hillary and are willing to vote McCain.

 

[Shapecity]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 8 2008, 12:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 7 2008, 09:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...t/national.html

<span style="color:#ff0000"><span style="color:#000000">Time Magazine Poll 02/01-02/04 958LV McCain 46% Clinton 46% Tie</span>
CNN Poll 02/01-02/03 974 RV McCain 47% Clinton 50% Clinton +3%</span>
<span style="color:#0000ff">Cook/RT Strategies Poll 01/31-02/02 855 RV McCain 45% Clinton 41% McCain +4%
ABC/Wash Post Poll 01/30-02/01 1249 A McCain 49% Clinton 46% McCain +3%
Fox News Poll 01/30-01/31 900 RV McCain 45% Clinton 44% McCain +1%
NPR Poll 01/29-01/31 1000 LV McCain 48% Clinton 45% McCain +3%
</span>

RealClearPolitics Average 01/29-02/04 McCain 46.7% Clinton 45.3% McCain +1.4%</div>

RV means Registered Voters, LV means Likely Voters. I tend to think the LV polls are more interesting.

These are national polls, they don't really say much about who'd win the national election. For that, you'd have to analyze the state-by-state polls and add up the likely electoral votes for each candidate.

The polls have been notoriously bad during the primaries. Poll taken the day before the NH Primary showed Obama up by a lot, he lost by a lot. This led Chris Matthews to suggest that the white voters in the northeast got in the voting box and voted against hte black guy. Obama was up big in California the day before the primary there, too. Go figure.

These national polls have a fairly long trend that can be followed. They're probably closer to accurate.

These polls do indicate a couple of things to me. McCain might just win the popular vote. And...
As much as you'd think Republicans might stay home and not vote McCain, Democrats and Independents seem to be not willing to vote for Hillary and are willing to vote McCain.
</div>

Yeah it's really bizarre has this ever happened before?

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Moo2K4 @ Feb 7 2008, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Honestly, I don't see this making much of a difference. After the disaster that has been G.W., I don't think the US is going to be looking to vote in another republican president. However, that could mean either a lot of republicans staying at home or a lot of people swallowing pride and voting for either the first female president or the first African American president.</div>

I COMPLETELY disagree. The far majority of the population is just locked into a particular party, a particular ideology, especially with regard to the one or two issues that matter most to them--and those issues aint the "war on terror," how combatants are treated, or the erosion of personal privacy. The election is going to be roughly 51%-49% on the popular vote one way or the other, and, like the past few elections, it will come down to a handful of states. I would not be at ALL surprised if a republican wins, although I could more easily envision the dems sweeping congress. Keep in mind also that whoever the democratic candidate is, there will be a significant population that will vote AGAINST that candidate more than FOR the republican opponent (who I assume is McCain).

 

[Denny Crane]

Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but lost the electoral vote. Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote way back when, and won the electoral vote.

To be honest, I think the 2004 election (and elections since 1994) do indicate more people vote republican if given a reason to. The republican congress combined with Bush's willingness to sign huge spending budgets gave people a reason to stay home in 2006. There's certainly not 2x more democrats than republicans, as the difference in # of voters in the primaries would indicate. One election (2006) isn't enough to indicate real change, it could easily be an exception.

This still fits in with my prognosis all along. McCain vs. Hillary, McCain may well win. McCain draws indepenents and democrats, while Hillary can't even draw most of the democrats. She's just a polarizing figure. Obama vs. McCain, I see Obama getting the crossover and most of the democrats, leaving McCain to get the liberal republican votes.

From the same URL:

Time has Obama over McCain 48%-41%
CNN Obama 52%-44%
Cook/RT Obama 45%-43%
ABC/Wash Post Obama 49%-46%
Fox News Obama 44%-43%
NPR 48%-47% McCain over Obama


RCP average Obama 47.5%-44.2%

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 7 2008, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Moo2K4 @ Feb 7 2008, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Honestly, I don't see this making much of a difference. After the disaster that has been G.W., I don't think the US is going to be looking to vote in another republican president. However, that could mean either a lot of republicans staying at home or a lot of people swallowing pride and voting for either the first female president or the first African American president.</div>

I COMPLETELY disagree. The far majority of the population is just locked into a particular party, a particular ideology, especially with regard to the one or two issues that matter most to them--and those issues aint the "war on terror," how combatants are treated, or the erosion of personal privacy. The election is going to be roughly 51%-49% on the popular vote one way or the other, and, like the past few elections, it will come down to a handful of states. I would not be at ALL surprised if a republican wins, although I could more easily envision the dems sweeping congress. Keep in mind also that whoever the democratic candidate is, there will be a significant population that will vote AGAINST that candidate more than FOR the republican opponent (who I assume is McCain).
</div>

The electoral map has been roughly decided along party lines. Basically, you have Ohio, PA, and FLA being the only swing states - win 2 of 3 of those and you likely win.

I am quite sure that Obama vs. McCain breaks that mold, and we'll have to see how it ends up.

McCain is pretty weak in the South during the republican primaries, and the South is a huge part of the Republicans' base of electoral votes.

 

[CelticKing]

I don't see America voting for either a woman or an african american. Its great what Obama and Clinton are doing even though Clinton is riding on her husbands back and getting the votes because of his name, otherwise she wouldn't have been able to even run for president. Obama on the other hand, I don't think he has the experience to lead this country. He might have some ideas, just like each of us has but you can't lead the country just with that.

Thats why my vote will be for McCain, who has been involved in politics for 30+ years, plus he is known to be able to work with the democrats when it is needed.

 

[Thoth]

Lets just say that I am not disappointed Willard suspensded his campaign. There are alot of unhappy people here in the Beehive state. Though, I have a good friend who is a Hard core Republican who (like myself) did not like Willard from the start.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (downunderwonder @ Feb 7 2008, 10:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Will the nation vote republican after the last disasterous term of George?</div>

I'm no fan of McCain & can only hope he is reaching out to people like Pat Robertson and not sucking up.

McCain is thank heavens is not a social conservative. We all know how well thats gone the 7 yrs have gone. He by no stretch of the imagination a fiscal conservative. A case could be made that neither was W.

Further, J Mac IMO will continue to occupy Iraq.

If Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, & the like continue to whine & then persuade the conservatives to sit this one out then fine. The whiney twits can take their ball and go home.

The GOP has moved closer to the Center. Obama & HRC are quite liberal. McCain can beat Hillary. Obama, though, could beat McCain.

 

[huevonkiller]

Obama runs this country now. The money he's generated recently is ridiculous, he got 7 million dollars two days after Super Tuesday.

 

[Thoth]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 8 2008, 12:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Moo2K4 @ Feb 7 2008, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Honestly, I don't see this making much of a difference. After the disaster that has been G.W., I don't think the US is going to be looking to vote in another republican president. However, that could mean either a lot of republicans staying at home or a lot of people swallowing pride and voting for either the first female president or the first African American president.</div>

I COMPLETELY disagree. The far majority of the population is just locked into a particular party, a particular ideology, especially with regard to the one or two issues that matter most to them--and those issues aint the "war on terror," how combatants are treated, or the erosion of personal privacy. The election is going to be roughly 51%-49% on the popular vote one way or the other, and, like the past few elections, it will come down to a handful of states. I would not be at ALL surprised if a republican wins, although I could more easily envision the dems sweeping congress. Keep in mind also that whoever the democratic candidate is, there will be a significant population that will vote AGAINST that candidate more than FOR the republican opponent (who I assume is McCain).
</div>

I read somewhere sometime ago that 40% of the people will vote Democrat no matter what & 40% will vote Republican regardless. Its the 20% in the center that the 2 parties woo to push them over the top.

It appears after sending alot of Blue dog democrats (Webb in VA & whoever beat Santorum in PA) that the Democrats will send someone quite Liberal up against McCain.

 

[Thoth]

<u>Does all this mean the GOP is raising McCain in 08? Rofl?</u>

Alot of what conservatives do may depend on who J Mac picks as his running mate.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/02/08/m...=googlenews_wsj

My preference is Steve Forbes. As for the Dems; Obama/Evan Bayh (Senator from Indiana) could be an interesting combo.

Thoughts?

 

[AEM]

While I'd love to see Forbes (great guy - let me go through some of his archives for research), Huckabee's getting something out of his work, and signs still point to a VP nod.

 

[ghoti]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Feb 8 2008, 11:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>While I'd love to see Forbes (great guy - let me go through some of his archives for research), Huckabee's getting something out of his work, and signs still point to a VP nod.</div>

I actually met Forbes and he is a nice man. I also love what he would bring to a ticket. (He was also hilarious when he hosted SNL!)

Strangely, he lives in Bedminster, NJ which is where I am right at this very moment.

Unfortunately, the creepy way he talks out of the side of his mouth is a huge problem. Politics suck.

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 8 2008, 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Feb 8 2008, 11:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>While I'd love to see Forbes (great guy - let me go through some of his archives for research), Huckabee's getting something out of his work, and signs still point to a VP nod.</div>

I actually met Forbes and he is a nice man. I also love what he would bring to a ticket. (He was also hilarious when he hosted SNL!)

Strangely, he lives in Bedminster, NJ which is where I am right at this very moment.

Unfortunately, the creepy way he talks out of the side of his mouth is a huge problem. Politics suck.
</div>

Where are you in Bedminster? I used to live in that area.

 

[ghoti]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Feb 8 2008, 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 8 2008, 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Feb 8 2008, 11:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>While I'd love to see Forbes (great guy - let me go through some of his archives for research), Huckabee's getting something out of his work, and signs still point to a VP nod.</div>

I actually met Forbes and he is a nice man. I also love what he would bring to a ticket. (He was also hilarious when he hosted SNL!)

Strangely, he lives in Bedminster, NJ which is where I am right at this very moment.

Unfortunately, the creepy way he talks out of the side of his mouth is a huge problem. Politics suck.
</div>

Where are you in Bedminster? I used to live in that area.
</div>

I'm staying in the Hills about half the time to be closer to work.

I grew up in Flanders.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 8 2008, 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Feb 8 2008, 11:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>While I'd love to see Forbes (great guy - let me go through some of his archives for research), Huckabee's getting something out of his work, and signs still point to a VP nod.</div>

I actually met Forbes and he is a nice man. I also love what he would bring to a ticket. (He was also hilarious when he hosted SNL!)

Strangely, he lives in Bedminster, NJ which is where I am right at this very moment.

Unfortunately, the creepy way he talks out of the side of his mouth is a huge problem. Politics suck.
</div>

I mostly dealt with his staff for my research, so I never got the chance to meet him.

 

[Denny Crane]

The scary scenario is McCain picks Jeb Bush as his running mate. Ignoring all other factors, Jeb definitely appeals to social conservatives, helps McCain where he's weakest (the South), has done a fairly good job as gov. of FLA, was well liked, etc. It would also set him up for a run in 2012 if a Dem wins this time or in 2016 if the republicans win it.

I like Forbes, and was really bummed out that GW didn't pick him as Treasury Secy in 2001.

Lieberman would be an interesting choice. Republicans would have a real shot at breaking up the lock the dems have on the Jewish constituency (which I simply don't understand in the first place). Lieberman would have a rare (if ever) distinction of running as VP in both parties.

My choice would be John Kasich, former congressman from Ohio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kasich

Fiscally conservative, religious but not overly so, honorable (he term limited himself 3 terms/6 years after the 1994 term limit promise by the republicans failed to pass), authored the budgets that got us running a surplus (he's a financial genius, IMO), and he writes quality best selling books (nothing like O'Reilly's or Al Franken).

McCain is strong on defense and international affairs, Kasich has no equal on the domestic side.

 

[Thoth]

I can see Huckabee as a possible VP if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination to help McCain in the south.

If Obama wins, I bet he turns out too liberal for the Nascar Dad's. McCain could then be more flexible w/ his choice.

 

[Denny Crane]

How about this? If Hillary is the nominee, McCain picks Obama.

He'd probably get 70% of the popular vote.

 

[Thoth]

Kasich would be a real good choice especially if he could lock up Ohio for the GOP which has been a key state recently.

I'd rather McCain pick Orrin Hatch to appeal to Social Conservatives then Jeb. lol?