Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Gingrich wins South Carolina primary, Fox News projects
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01 ... a-primary/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So with 6% of the states, but less than 2% of the delegates awarded, its now one for Santorum, one for Romney, and one for Newt.

Still wide open and a long way to go.

Shouldn't keep score by the number of states won.

1. Mitt Romney 31 delegates
2. Newt Gingrich 26 delegates
3. Ron Paul 10 delegates
4. Rick Santorum 8 delegates

Easy money. Racists in the south aren't voting for a Mormon. Easy win for Obama come November

eagleskins wrote:Easy money. Racists in the south aren't voting for a Mormon. Easy win for Obama come November

Does not compute.
Does not compute.
Does not compute.

eagleskins wrote:Easy money. Racists in the south aren't voting for a Mormon. Easy win for Obama come November

Bull shit. The easy answer is also the wrong one. Also a stupid one and one designed to agitate, not to enlighten.

Romney has had a ceiling in most polls in most states. There is a good reason for that. Romney represents the part of the republican party that helped get us in the mess we are in now. Whatever you think of the tea party, their rise was as much a a dislike for the establishmnet republican as it was for what's happened under Obama during the last three years. Romney (1) represents the establishment and (2) has been the one candidate who has campaigned on the least change platform. As I heard someone say last night, Romney is the tweaker candidate. No major changes, just tweaks here and there. Maybe a great way to run for President ( although I am not sure I agree) but it is a horrible way to run for the republican nomination. I still think that Romney has a good chance at winning the nomination because (1) he has the money, (2) the primaries in the future will allow less time for people to be swayed and (3) because the non-Romney candidates are either not good ones or have way to much baggage. Fourth reason, it is very likely that he will win the primaries in states that aren't going to vote republican in the general election. Fifth reason, while Gingrich is a very strong debater and isn't afraid to say things that the tweaker candidate won't say, he always, in the end, puts his foot in his mouth.

OL FU wrote:

eagleskins wrote:Easy money. Racists in the south aren't voting for a Mormon. Easy win for Obama come November

Bull shit. The easy answer is also the wrong one. Also a stupid one and one designed to agitate, not to enlighten.

Romney has had a ceiling in most polls in most states. There is a good reason for that. Romney represents the part of the republican party that helped get us in the mess we are in now. Whatever you think of the tea party, their rise was as much a a dislike for the establishmnet republican as it was for what's happened under Obama during the last three years. Romney (1) represents the establishment and (2) has been the one candidate who has campaigned on the least change platform. As I heard someone say last night, Romney is the tweaker candidate. No major changes, just tweaks here and there. Maybe a great way to run for President ( although I am not sure I agree) but it is a horrible way to run for the republican nomination. I still think that Romney has a good chance at winning the nomination because (1) he has the money, (2) the primaries in the future will allow less time for people to be swayed and (3) because the non-Romney candidates are either not good ones or have way to much baggage. Fourth reason, it is very likely that he will win the primaries in states that aren't going to vote republican in the general election. Fifth reason, while Gingrich is a very strong debater and isn't afraid to say things that the tweaker candidate won't say, he always, in the end, puts his foot in his mouth.

1) Mormonism is a race. They are from another planet. 2) I hope you are right, but I think you are giving the tea party more credit than they deserve in regards to their equal dislike of establishment Republicans. 3) So you're saying Mitt is on meth?

Do you remember the number of incumbant republican candidates or establishment candidates that bit the dust in the primaries of 2010. We had one hear in the upstate, long term rep Ingles. Lots of the candidates ended up being worse, like the "I am not a witch" candidate. I don't think for a moment that their disagreement with Obama and the republicans is equal. But the dislike for establishment republicans is real. It may end up being short lived, but it is still here at the present.

Unfortunately, the alternative Gingrich is pretty damn establishment too except for one thing. The establishment doesn't want him anywhere near the nomination.

OL FU wrote:Do you remember the number of incumbant republican candidates or establishment candidates that bit the dust in the primaries of 2010. We had one hear in the upstate, long term rep Ingles. Lots of the candidates ended up being worse, like the "I am not a witch" candidate. I don't think for a moment that their disagreement with Obama and the republicans is equal. But the dislike for establishment republicans is real. It may end up being short lived, but it is still here at the present.

Unfortunately, the alternative Gingrich is pretty damn establishment too except for one thing. The establishment doesn't want him anywhere near the nomination.

This is a good sign, but you would think that Paul would've done better.

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:Do you remember the number of incumbant republican candidates or establishment candidates that bit the dust in the primaries of 2010. We had one hear in the upstate, long term rep Ingles. Lots of the candidates ended up being worse, like the "I am not a witch" candidate. I don't think for a moment that their disagreement with Obama and the republicans is equal. But the dislike for establishment republicans is real. It may end up being short lived, but it is still here at the present.

Unfortunately, the alternative Gingrich is pretty damn establishment too except for one thing. The establishment doesn't want him anywhere near the nomination.

This is a good sign, but you would think that Paul would've done better.

In South Carolina, Paul's military positions don't play well. It is a military state. One reason McCain did so well in 2008.

I voted for Paul although I have to admit it makes my stomach churn, not because of his positions but because of the newsletter junk. not sure I should have and I understand that he may not have read the newsletters that had his name on it

eagleskins wrote:Easy money. Racists in the south aren't voting for a Mormon. Easy win for Obama come November

You are such a fucking bigot. I hope you msterbate yourself to death.

duplicate.

BDKJMU wrote:Gingrich wins South Carolina primary, Fox News projects
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01 ... a-primary/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Too good.

AZGrizFan wrote:

eagleskins wrote:Easy money. Racists in the south aren't voting for a Mormon. Easy win for Obama come November

Does not compute.
Does not compute.
Does not compute.

Indeed...

However - Southern Baptists just made Romney's Mormonism a real issue in the south. No denying. Exit polling (to be taken with a grain of salt to be sure) indicates that Romney's religion was an issue for a very large number of voters.

Also interesting - in a state where 28% of the population is black... less than 1% of the voter turnout was black.

Ibanez wrote:

eagleskins wrote:Easy money. Racists in the south aren't voting for a Mormon. Easy win for Obama come November

You are such a fucking bigot. I hope you msterbate yourself to death.

There are things wrong with the statement... however, I'll make it more articulate and clean it up so that the relevant point is made.

Romney's Mormonism is damn sure an issue in the south... and while southern conservatives aren't going to go vote for Obama over Romney in a general... they may just stay home. While that likely won't be enough to cost Romney the rock-ribbed southern conservative states like SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TN, KY or AR... it could SERIOUSLY hurt him in VA, NC and FL (Florida north of I-4 may as well be part of Alabama or Georgia culturally) - which would be enough to tip the election to Obama overall.

That's not to say that somehow Gingrich or Santorum would fare better - although they would in the south - they'd do much worse than Romney in NV, AZ, NM and CO... (where Mitt's Mormonism will help him) They'd also fare worse in places like MN, IA, MI, WI and OH...

The electoral map presents HUGE challenges for conks this year... none of their candidates seem to have the juice they need to get to 270...

Newt's win in SC might have something to do with all the spending that he's done in that state. Heck, the only political ad I've heard in the CSRA that was not by Newt or his Super PAC was one Romney commercial the week right before the primary.

Here's a helpful hint people need to keep in mind: with most subsets of the population that are not a white male WASP, far more people will vote for that person because of their identification with that group than will vote against that person...yes, even in the eeeeeeeeevil south.

By the way, didn't Herman Cain have the lead in SC right before his big crash near the end of last year? Oh yes, I believe he did....
http://www.theroot.com/buzz/nbc-poll-he ... n-leads-sc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TwinTownBisonFan wrote: Also interesting - in a state where 28% of the population is black... less than 1% of the voter turnout was black.

You've got to be kidding here, right?

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Romney's Mormonism is damn sure an issue in the south... and while southern conservatives aren't going to go vote for Obama over Romney in a general... they may just stay home. While that likely won't be enough to cost Romney the rock-ribbed southern conservative states like SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TN, KY or AR... it could SERIOUSLY hurt him in VA, NC and FL (Florida north of I-4 may as well be part of Alabama or Georgia culturally) - which would be enough to tip the election to Obama overall.

That's not to say that somehow Gingrich or Santorum would fare better - although they would in the south - they'd do much worse than Romney in NV, AZ, NM and CO... (where Mitt's Mormonism will help him) They'd also fare worse in places like MN, IA, MI, WI and OH...

The electoral map presents HUGE challenges for conks this year... none of their candidates seem to have the juice they need to get to 270...

With this analysis, it appears Gingrich may be the candidate with the best chance. He's damned sure not going to lose the "rock-ribbed conservative states" that you mention, and he'll do better in VA/NC/FL than Romney. Additionally, AZ is going conk no matter what, but NV, NM and CO might be in play without a mormon candidate...I'll take that tradeoff.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
You are such a **** bigot. I hope you msterbate yourself to death.

There are things wrong with the statement... however, I'll make it more articulate and clean it up so that the relevant point is made.

Romney's Mormonism is damn sure an issue in the south... and while southern conservatives aren't going to go vote for Obama over Romney in a general... they may just stay home. While that likely won't be enough to cost Romney the rock-ribbed southern conservative states like SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TN, KY or AR... it could SERIOUSLY hurt him in VA, NC and FL (Florida north of I-4 may as well be part of Alabama or Georgia culturally) - which would be enough to tip the election to Obama overall.

quote]


I don't think anyone says it is not an issue. But it isn't nearly as big as people make it out. Sorry, I realize us dumb southern folk just don't get it. But I promise, the points I made are much more relevant than Romney's mormonism. And the only people that might stay home are the Paul supporters. Romney doesn't generate much interest in the conservative states and if some stay home it won't be enough for the them to swing back democratic. The democrats will keep the north east and west coast and it will be fought out in the midwest and the mountain states.

AZGrizFan wrote:
With this analysis, it appears Gingrich may be the candidate with the best chance. He's damned sure not going to lose the "rock-ribbed conservative states" that you mention, and he'll do better in VA/NC/FL than Romney. Additionally, AZ is going conk no matter what, but NV, NM and CO might be in play without a mormon candidate...I'll take that tradeoff.

I don't know who has the best chance of winning, but I know Romney has a real shot at winning the primaries in the states that aren't going to vote republican anyway.

conks

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:
This is a good sign, but you would think that Paul would've done better.

In South Carolina, Paul's military positions don't play well. It is a military state. One reason McCain did so well in 2008.

I voted for Paul although I have to admit it makes my stomach churn, not because of his positions but because of the newsletter junk. not sure I should have and I understand that he may not have read the newsletters that had his name on it

Yeah, I read 8 military bases, 413k vets. Thought I heard somewhere that SC had more vets per capita than any other state.

I thought Paul had the most military support of all the candidates? Or is that only active duty members?