Mitt Romney Has a 20 Point Lead in South Carolina GOP Nomination Over?

1. 89

   Rock_njposted 12 years ago

   Mitt Romney Has a 20 Point Lead in South Carolina.  Is the GOPNomination Over?  I thought that Romney would take New Hampshire, then lose some southern states, and leave the door open for someone else to come from behind.  But it's now looking like Romney will roll to a GOP nomination win, if he can succeed in South Carolina.
   
   A new CNN/Time Magazine poll of likely Republican voters in the state finds the former Massachusetts governor with a nearly 20-point lead over his closest rival, Rick Santorum. According to the poll, Romney now leads in the state with 37 percent support, a 17-point jump since last month.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Rasmussen has Romney ahead by only 3 points in SC. The other GOP candidates are gonna pile on Mitt at the debates this weekend. He's gonna get "Romneyed"! Still, I think he has the best shot against Obama.
      
      Oh, and it's funny to me how Newt calls Mitt such a nasty name...wait for it...a moderate! Oh, no!

      replyreport
      1. 89

         Rock_njposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Newt Gingrich is the poster child for what is wrong in Washington, DC.  A politician who will do and say anything to get elected.  Who changes his position with the political winds (look up who was promoting cap and trade a few years ago).  If he wasn't such a clown, Newt might actually be in the running for the GOP nomination.  But even the rightwingers in the GOP can't take Newt seriously anymore.

         replyreport
         1. 93

            habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I'm a moderate-conservative, and I can't stand Newt. And I'm even from GA!

            replyreport
   2. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Looks to me like it's over.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         No, it's not over until Ron Paul either wins, or is chosen as a VP.
         
         Then, we'll instantly know who will win the presidential election.
         
         If Ron Paul is in the Republican party as VP or P, then Obama will lose, if he's not, Obama gets a third term.
         
         I'm surprised that more democrats aren't trying to label Paul as "not a Republican". If such a message got through, the race would be over.

         replyreport
   3. 60

      uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There are three factors involved in the Romney's sudden momentum shift from the rotation of "anybody but Romeny" to it looks like Romney. 
      
      1) The dual victories in Iowa and New Hampshire - though both are very minor players - helps clarify his ability to win.
      
      2) He continues to pile up endorsements from people who have credibility with conservatives - the group Romney most alienates - People like former UN ambassador, the gravitas laden, John Bolton and Nikki Haley, the Governor of South Carolina, Indian American, TEA party favorite, Sarah Palin supported and last but not least, yet another, fine looking Republican woman.
      
      3) And most importantly -
      
      Newt and Perry just attacked Romney for being a capitalist - an obviously desperate move and a foolish one given that Romney hadn't been able to bring conservatives on board - you know them free marketers, small government - conservatives.
      
      I want to personally thank Newt and Perry for making my decision easier.  Idiots.

      replyreport
2. 64

   Greek Oneposted 12 years ago

   He will win the Republican nomination.
   
   He will then lose to Obama in the election so badly that henceforth, whenever a candidate killed in a electoral landslide, the term the papers will use will be "Romneyed"
   
   Used as an example...
   
   "Did you see the election results on TV last night?.... The mayor was Romneyed"

   replyreport
   1. 85

      livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I have the same suspicion.
      
      Republicans can console themselves with the fact that any of the other contenders would lose even worse to Obama. I was really hoping for a Santorum nomination...

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         anyone who's paying attention knows that this race is Ron Paul vs. the Republican Party & Obama.
         
         If Ron Paul gets to be a major part of the Republican ticket, then the R's will win with ease. If not, Obama gets another 4 years.
         
         The fact that the Republicans are shunning Ron Paul shows that they don't actually want to win the nomination, and that both parties are the same.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            Rock_njposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Ron Paul is not the sort of person that the Republicans are looking for to be VP.  Regionally, Paul does nothing for the Republican ticket.  I do not mean this to be a negative, but he is not a team player.  He does his own thing and actually votes the way he talks, which is contrary to some prominent Republican positions, such as using our military as world policeman for Corporate America's interests.  He is not the sort of politician that the Republican machine wants as VP, and he isn't going to win the nomination for the Republican party.   
            
            That being said, I don't think no Paul on the GOP ticket means a win for Obama.  Depending on how the economy is by the fall, who Romney chooses for his VP (can he pick up a state or two with his VP pick? like Florida), and how Romney campaigns, it could be a very close election. 
            
            If I had to put money down, I would bet on Obama to win, but November is a long way away, and a lot can happen between now and then.

            replyreport
   2. 74

      910chrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I do believe that you have predicted the future! Our grandchildren will be using that term!

      replyreport
3. 64

   Greek Oneposted 12 years ago

   the term can also be used elsewhere...
   
   further example...
   
   "Here is the snap.. the defense in rushing the quarterback.. OUCH!  He just got Romneyed into a cheerleader"
   
   
   "I'm sorry Mr Smith, there is no hope, the virus has Romneyed your entire sphincter"
   
   
   "I was devastated... I come home early from the meeting, and walk up stairs...  what do I see?  My wife being Romneyed by my best friend!"

   replyreport
4. 64

   Greek Oneposted 12 years ago

   Now it Newt was to run and lose against Obama, the term would be the much funnier "Newtered"

   replyreport
   1. 82

      manlypoetrymanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah...'Cause the expression...you have humorously derived...should have already had its origins when everyone was "McCained"
      
      "Newtered" and "Romneyed"...Now...that's rich, G.O. You have much humor!

      replyreport
5. 62

   Evan G Rogersposted 12 years ago

   If I'm not mistaken, the winner of primaries and caucuses don't get 100% of the delegates.

   replyreport
6. 0

   oldandwiseposted 12 years ago

   It will be interesting to see the polls after this weekends debates.

   replyreport
7. 61

   tirelesstravelerposted 12 years ago

   Not on my watch.  1/2 my family lives in MA.  As grateful as I was for the insurance that covered my mother-in-laws last days three years ago. Romney care is a disaster.  There was only 10% of the people of Massachusetts uninsured when it want into effect.  Now several years later the waiting list for a doctors appointment is 2 months. Nothing was done to increase health care providers, while many more people became insured. The newly insured people started seeing doctors for everything they had missed. Romney won't repeal Obamacare. Romney can't do anything to increase the number of doctors in the US. While everyone will have health insurance. nobody will have any health care, because there won't be enough to go around.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      oldandwiseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So you're saying it would be better for those extra folks not to have health care and possibly die from lack of care? I'm missing something here I think?

      replyreport
      1. 89

         Rock_njposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I don't want to judge someone I do not know.  But it sounds like the old I got mine and the hell with everyone else.

         replyreport
      2. 61

         tirelesstravelerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Recently a man from Mexico was released from eleven months in a Fresno, California hospital and had 12 operations.  He had no insurance.  By law hospitals cannot deny medical treatment if you are critically ill. Many people in the statistics choose not to have healthcare.( The government will punish those people with significant fines if don't sign up for it under Obamacare) How do they get care? There are medical co-ops that help people pay for medical bills. The Amish don't carry medical insurance, by conscience. Veterans can get medical care through the VA. Wealthy people don't carry healthcare insurance, because its cheaper by far(hospitals will give you 40% off for cash payments, doctors will give typically 10-15% for cash payments).  What I am saying here is"Not all people, who you have been told don't have insurance, want it". The way Romney care and Obamacare are set up we all lose.  The only people exempt are congress.

         replyreport
8. 85

   rebekahELLEposted 12 years ago

   

   replyreport
9. 61

   Ron Montgomeryposted 12 years ago

   Ron Paul is gonna get santorumed

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately, what will really happen is that Romney will get Pauled.

      replyreport
10. 63

    I am DB Cooperposted 12 years ago

    It's over. Once that snowball gets rolling, it's nearly impossible to stop it. Ron Paul is already saying he's basically skipping any campaign efforts in Florida and trying to move ahead to states that come after it. That's a bold strategy, but historically it doesn't pay off. Success in the early states gets a candidate free votes in the later states, because party loyalists vote against divisiveness within the party. This is especially true on the Republican side, which gets fewer anti-establishment candidates and therefore tends to get behind one guy fairly quickly.
    
    Most polls I've seen have Romney pulling ahead to a huge lead in South Carolina. He's also polling well in New Hampshire. If those numbers hold up, there's no turning back. It'll be Obama vs. Romney in November.

    replyreport
    1. 62

       Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Florida is worth 50 delegates.
       
       You need 1150.

       replyreport
       1. 63

          I am DB Cooperposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          It's all about momentum. If you don't win early states, you'll have trouble convincing voters to go against the tide in the later states. It's not a fair system, because it gives way too much power to early states. Those voters are not just voting for their candidate to get a delegate, but their vote carries tremendous influence on the voters from states that come after them.
          
          It's possible to lose New Hampshire early and still come back, but if a candidate takes NH, South Carolina, and Florida there isn't another major primary for a month afterward. In that month the voters tend to accept who has the lead and unite behind that candidate. It's an anti-Obama play rather than true support for Mitt Romney. Even with the new GOP rules that attempt to stretch the primary process out longer to give more exposure to their eventual nominee, it's very unlikely that someone who loses early primaries would be able to make the comeback. It's actually more likely that someone from outside the field, like Christie, could jump in and grab the "anyone but Romney or anyone who has already lost to Romney" vote.
          
          Even if Ron Paul could gather enough delegates to block Romney (which he won't), he wouldn't be able to bargain his way to the top in a brokered convention. In fact, he's the least likely candidate to be able to bargain his way to the nomination, because the Republican establishment doesn't like him.

          replyreport
          1. 62

             Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             "It's all about momentum"
             
             Well, that's normally true for the candidate. But, Ron Paul has been on a momentum train for the last 4 years of his life. Every day he gets thousands of new supporters who absolutely refuse to vote for anyone else.
             
             Ron Paul's plan isn't to win every primary - it would be foolish to try to do this - he wants to win the delegates. Unlike the media, and the rest of the Republican nominees, Ron Paul is in for the LONG haul, not just the early states.
             
             Perry is going to drop out after SC, Huntsman will drop out in early February, and Gingrich will probably have to give up by late February.
             
             Ron Paul isn't going to give up until someone else gets 1144 delegates, and even then he won't give up until he does not get the VP nomination.
             
             If he's not the P or the VP, then Obama will get another 4 years.

             replyreport
11. 60

    steveamyposted 12 years ago

    Sounds like a second term for Obama...

    replyreport
12. 61

    Paul Wingertposted 12 years ago

    Romney is a lying sack of s**t who's willing to say anything to get elected. He's totally out of touch with the people and his pas track record speaks for himself.

    replyreport
13. 60

    Moderndayslaveposted 12 years ago

    Wall St. and big business has destroyed and looted the world economy so let's put one of them in the White House. I don't get it. What are they trying to do, Finish America off?

    replyreport
14. 60

    Cassie Smithposted 12 years ago

    The nomination is not over by a long shot.  It just started, why do people want it to be over so quickly?

    replyreport
    1. 89

       Rock_njposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I do not want the GOP nomination to be over quickly.  I just want to figure out who is going to win.  If it was Romney versus a strong conservative candidate, there would be more doubt.  But with conservatives splitting their votes amongst 5 other candidates, it seems as if Romney might just squeeze through the middle.  I'm not sure who can take it from Romney at this point, unless Super Tuesday is a total disaster for him.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Cassie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Well that is what makes this whole thing somewhat exciting.  It's whether Christians will prevent Romney's Mormonism from him winning or whether the Evangelicals will continue to support Santorum in big numbers or whether Paul will come from behind because of the Independents.  We still can't take out Perry because once the circuit hits the South it could be a totally new ball game.

          replyreport
       2. 62

          Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          LOL, we don't even know who won Iowa yet. The delegates haven't been apportioned in ANY state.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             I may be mistaken - though I am pretty sure I am right - but Iowa delegates to the convention aren't even required to cast their first ballot votes for the candidate who won their vote in the caucus.

             replyreport
             1. 62

                Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                That is correct - many (that is, the people who understand how the process works) are speculating that Ron Paul actually won Iowa because all of his supporters were well trained and understood that they needed to stick around until the very very very end to make sure that they were chosen as delegates.
                
                From what I've read, THOUSANDS of Ron Paul fans stuck around to make sure they were chosen in their districts.
                
                Why did the Ron Paul supporters know to stick behind? Because they lost a few primaries in 2008 when his supporters just left after the vote.
                
                It's actually quite amazing to see that most news outlets haven't been talking about this. This is a huge deal - Iowa is worth just under 5% of the required national delegates.
                
                Texas - Ron Paul's home state - is worth over 10%. New York and California - both hotbeds of "I'm sick of Obama's lies and want REAL change to believe in" - are worth about 30% together, and are going to be easy-picking for Ron Paul.
                
                Translated: If he aims for the long term, and not just the first few primaries, he has a real chance of winning.

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   Ultimately to no avail.  So much squandered energy and money.  But they get their brown shirts at a discount.

                   replyreport
       3. 60

          uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          With Newt and Perry attacking Romeny for being a capitalist they have pushed more conservatives toward Romeny not away from him.
          
          Newt and Perry - with one video attack and a couple of attacking interviews - have succeeded in alienating or, at the very least, made staunch conservatives like Rush Limbaugh question their campaign temperament.  This make Romney look even steadier and cooler under fire - not characteristics you want to help your opponent demonstrate.

          replyreport
15. 59

    Stump Parrishposted 12 years ago

    The dumbest state in the union has the chance to make a difference in the election process. Stupid is as Stupid votes and this state consistently votes for the Gumps Of Politics Party. People often state how the country should be run like a business but having the dumbest people in the country electing the leaders of our country is like a multi national corporation relying on the temporary janitorial staff to set corporate policy.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       oldandwiseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Well if your an American, I can only assume, if you vote, you're also one of the dumbest people in America. More name slinging, never ceases to amaze me. I'm not aware of a dumb state? And a multi national corporation couldn't operate without a janitorial staff. So it seems to me, no job or position is more important then another. Without one, the other one can't exist.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          Stump Parrishposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          South Carolina ranks dead last in quality of education. I suppose you would consider this state to be a stronghold of intelligence due to the fact that they consistantly vote Republican and continue to wonder why this state is in such bad shape. You're absolutely correct that a corporation couldn't function with out a janitorial staff. You obviously chose to ignore the fact that I stated that the problem would be when the CEO started allowing the least educated staff with in the company to set policy for the entire company.I suppose if you are the CEO and want to know how to increase sales in Asia, you would ask the guy cleaning toilets, correct?
          
          I am doing some research into the educational levels of states in America and one thing is becoming clear. the 10 least educated states have two things in common, they are almost all Republican strongholds and they are are almost all in the top 10 most religious states in America. Do you see the obvious connection" stupid is as stupid does and stupid votes Republican, Amen. I am assuming that these same states are also big fan bases of the Faux News networks. Care to make a wager on that one? The old saying is that with age comes wisdom, problem is we are discovering that age often makes an appearance, all by itself.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             oldandwiseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             I will agree that southern states are almost all Republican and many do get their viewpoints from faux news. But I do defend my opinion of name slinging is wrong and of no value to your views. Your points would be better taken if you left out educational levels and belittling anyones work position in life. Then, as an Idependent, I would be at your side.

             replyreport
             1. 59

                Stump Parrishposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                I understand your point as well. I am however living in SC and am surrounded by the type of people I described. I am register as an independent myself. I tend to vote mostly Democratic as I feel they at least pretend to care about the majority of people in this country. I suppose a lot of my attitude comes from years of listening to people who never graduated high school, acting as if they know more about the political process, science, geology, history and every other subject they have never cracked a book about. Nothing makes people down here an expert on any subject like never having spent even 10 minutes of their life studying that subject.
                
                I will freely admit that my attitude has become more confrontational over the years. I also take some measure of pride in my limited ability to think critically and am often amazed and disgusted at how many down here are determined to never think again in their lifetime. I have no problem speaking intelligently on a variety of subject when the opportunity presents it self. the chances for this are becoming increasingly rare these days and a large portion of the country feels this is what is best for it.
                
                I also am aware that I tend to jump to conclusions about the people who defend the GOP and the Right wing Christian Coalition. Most of their platform seems to be centered around keeping everyone who thinks differently, looks differently or believes differently, classified as second class citizen. I am sick and tired of the level of hatred these people need to simply get through the day. The fact that a major decision about the future of this country could come down to how these yahoos vote is saddening to say the least. The GOP knows that all they have to do to keep receiving the votes of these people is to cater to their hatred of one group or another. That is a sad excuse for a way to pick the leaders of this country. &0% of the people in this state demand that their leaders share their religious beliefs. These so called leaders can destroy the future of this country as long as they say Amen after each bill is passed.
                
                These people have no interest in or ability to do any type of fact checking. The GOP knows this and uses it at every opportunity. These people actually seem to prefer to be lied to and I doubt I will ever be able to muster very much respect for them. This blind loyalty is a large portion of what is destroying this country. Congress has a 9% approval rating and watch and see how many of them get re-elected. Most people know that Congress is killing this country but each one of them will continue to vote for their favorite. This country obviously feels it has out lived it's life expectancy as most people do everything in their power to bring about it's demise and their own.

                replyreport
16. 60

    Cassie Smithposted 12 years ago

    This race is so not over!  Romney won in New Hampshire, but Paul placed a strong second, while a surprisingly strong Huntsman finished not far behind.  Santorum is nowhere to be seen but that may change in this next round. Whoohoo!

    replyreport
    1. 89

       Rock_njposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       It really all comes down to what happens in South Carolina and Florida.  If Romney proves that he can win in the south, then the Republican nomination is over.  If some other candidate can take both primaries, then perhaps we'll have a longer nomination process.  But who is going to do it, Ron Paul?  That does not seem likey.  Huntsman has not polled well in the South, but we'll see what the polls look like after New Hampshire.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Cassie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I have to say that I'm very surprised by Ron Paul's progress so far.  We'll see if he can keep it up.  I'm curious to see how Romney does in the Bible Belt.  And whether Santorum can do a comeback or whether Perry and Gingrich can even make a dent.

          replyreport
          1. 89

             Rock_njposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Perry should hang it up.  The guy has put his foot in his mouth so many times that his mouth must really hurt by now.  He isn't doing his party any favors by attacking the person who will be their nominee in the fall when he himself has no chance of win the nomination now.  Shows you the lack of character Perry has.

             replyreport
             1. 93

                habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                According to the Perry camp, he's backing off from his attacks on Romney. Newt is full steam ahead, however, with his attacks.

                replyreport
                1. 89

                   Rock_njposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                   The next move from the Perry camp will be to disband.  Good old "bull dog" Newt never stops barking.  I wonder if he'll eventually support Romney, if Newt can't pull a rabbit out of a hat and win the nomination?

                   replyreport
17. 79

    Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

    Agree on second half of your sentence but awareness of/connection to the first half is sorely lacking among the popular vote.
    As I see it, those people (the ones clinging to their guns and religion) are determined to return America to her former 1780s glory.

    replyreport
18. 63

    I am DB Cooperposted 12 years ago

    Look at the polling numbers from South Carolina. Romney's got a double-digit lead, and that's before the results of a NH primary. He'll get a bounce for winning in NH, and Ron Paul will get a bounce for exceeding expectations in NH, but he's only polling at 11% in South Carolina, so that bounce will likely only bring him up to 13 or 14%. Romney, who is currently in the low-30's in SC, will probably end up getting around 35%.
    
    Jon Huntsman had a good showing in NH thanks to that fake offensive video his daughters released and blamed on Ron Paul, but he's polling around 5% in South Carolina. He'll be done before he even makes it to Florida.
    
    Speaking of Florida, has anyone looked at those polls recently? Romney's got a 12 point lead over Newt Gingrich (yes, he's still running), and a 20 point lead over Santorum. Expect to see that lead increase after a win in South Carolina. After that, the dominoes start falling.
    
    Even if the GOP decides to penalize the early states and cut their delegates because they moved their primary it won't matter, because Romney's momentum will be too much to overcome. Rudy Giuliani had a lead in Florida polls during the last presidential election because he ignored the earlier states and focused solely on Florida. He ended up 4th in the Florida primary and got steamrolled by the candidates who built some momentum in the primaries before Florida. Giuliani was actually ahead in national polls in 2007, but he learned quickly that if you don't win early, you have almost no chance of coming back.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Cassie Smithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       If Romney does have a double-digit lead in South Carolina, it shows that his Mormon faith will not be a problem in the Bible Belt.  The interest is really in who will be able to do the job well.  It would be great if the voters can put Mormon prejudice behind them.

       replyreport
       1. 79

          Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          The Church of Mormon is certainly banking on that in a $BIG$$$ way, aren't they?

          replyreport
       2. 63

          I am DB Cooperposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I think the other candidates were counting on the Mormon thing being a bigger factor, and it just hasn't panned out that way. It's hard for them to even bring it up now without coming across as prejudiced. I expect to see anonymous attacks via YouTube, but that's unlikely to sway any significant voting blocs.

          replyreport
19. 0

    icountthetimesposted 12 years ago

    I doubt he'll win by 20 points there. He just doesn't seem to have that level of support within his own party and benefits mostly from the anti romney vote being split so many ways. I doubt he'll win by more then 5 points there, and I think there's even a chance that he'll lose.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       oldandwiseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I think when people find out his involvement with Bain, using leveraged buyouts and then borrowing against assets to bankrupt the companies. Then leaving the tax payers to pay for the government pension guarantee, might drop him further in the polls and not win in SC or FL.

       replyreport
       1. 63

          I am DB Cooperposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          You're assuming voters are actually "informed".

          replyreport
20. 93

    habeeposted 12 years ago

    Romney is just slightly leading Newt in SC now, according to Augusta newspapers. I think it's going to be hard for Mitt to win the state, but I think he'll do well in FL.

    replyreport
    1. 63

       I am DB Cooperposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I saw that poll, and noticed that Gingrich has a huge lead over Romney among younger voters. I'd like to see if these voters actually show up for the primary. They generally don't unless they're really excited about a candidate, and I have trouble believing anyone could be excited about voting for Newt Gingrich, no matter how much they dislike Romney.

       replyreport
       1. 79

          Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          The only candidate generating "excitement" is Ron Paul.
          But his message appeals to independents and disillusioned and young, passionate dems. That doesn't help him win the GOP nomination.
          The extreme anger and bitterness tide of the right, as evidenced by the surge of Tea Party frosh voted into Congress in 2010, seems to have ebbed completely.
          Neap, neap.

          replyreport
21. 60

    steveamyposted 12 years ago

    In hindsight this thread is kind of funny -- 1/24/12

    replyreport