Post by: Matt King on January 13, 2008, 08:31:08 AM
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=4127524&page=1
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 13, 2008, 09:12:43 AM
Post by: Matt King on January 13, 2008, 09:17:03 AM
Well, I'll certainly be out for the vote, against him.
Where does he get his support from?
I'm always amazed at how many people vote for him.
Post by: TexasRifleman on January 13, 2008, 01:07:32 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 13, 2008, 02:44:18 PM
Well, I'll certainly be out for the vote, against him.
Where does he get his support from?
I'm always amazed at how many people vote for him.
I heard Glenn Beck today, assuring a caller that Romney would NOT take anyone's guns away. Absolutely wouldn't. Trust him. So, I guess there's nothing to fear on that issue.
Post by: SteveS on January 13, 2008, 02:56:44 PM
Quote
Insert Quote
I'm always amazed when people predict the end when less than 1 half of 1 percent of the people have voted in primaries thus far.
I'm always amazed when people predict the end when less than 1 half of 1 percent of the people have voted in primaries thus far.
If candidates fail to build up some momentum by winning the early races, then they usually run out of campaing funds and donors. This certainly isn't anything new.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 13, 2008, 03:08:45 PM
Well, I'll certainly be out for the vote, against him.
Where does he get his support from?
I'm always amazed at how many people vote for him.
I heard Glenn Beck today, assuring a caller that Romney would NOT take anyone's guns away. Absolutely wouldn't. Trust him. So, I guess there's nothing to fear on that issue.
That said, I dont think Romney would do much to expand gun owners' rights either.
And he's slimy, like a weasel.
But I also heard that Giuliani's staffers are foregoing paychecks. It seems inconceivable that two front runners should suddenly find themselves at rope's end so early into it.
Maybe Fred's strategy was right after all?
Post by: grampster on January 13, 2008, 03:19:32 PM
True, but you need a president that will veto any anti gun nonsense that comes out of the congress. A Dem won't do that.
Fred Thompson may be the only one who would.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 13, 2008, 03:47:04 PM
National Healthcare though is another thing.
Post by: gunsmith on January 13, 2008, 03:48:13 PM
I'll be voting for Ron or Fred during the Caucus, depending on where the cute girls are.
If Mitt draws all those cute Mormon blondes over to his side, I'll go over to his side for the caucus, I heard they're like a great big party....I've only voted in primaries, never went to a caucus.....
Would a cute young blonde Mormon ever date an old ugly Christian gun nut?.
Post by: Matt King on January 13, 2008, 04:09:50 PM
I am more confident in Congress not to produce some odious turd of an anti gun bill than anything else. Too many Democrats got elected on pro gun platforms and they cant go back to their voters and explain why they voted for it. It is too divisive an issue and not up far enough on anyone's agenda to bother about.
National Healthcare though is another thing.
National Healthcare though is another thing.
It'll be interesting to see how Democrats handle the Heller decision, whatever it may be.
Post by: BridgeWalker on January 13, 2008, 06:33:26 PM
Haven't seen a word about this Romney fellow, native son or not.
Post by: Ned Hamford on January 13, 2008, 08:47:48 PM
Would a cute young blonde Mormon ever date an old ugly Christian gun nut?.
Let em know your vote depends on it.
Post by: jefnvk on January 13, 2008, 09:44:42 PM
Quote
Upon traveling throughout MI, a visitor from outer space would conclude Ron Paul is about to win an election by a landslide.
True that.
BTW, Romney was born in MI, his dad was a govenor of MI and ran one of the big auto companies, Romney himself worked in some of the auto plants. I think he's hoping for the auto industry/hometown vote here.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 13, 2008, 10:41:11 PM
I am more confident in Congress not to produce some odious turd of an anti gun bill than anything else. Too many Democrats got elected on pro gun platforms and they cant go back to their voters and explain why they voted for it. It is too divisive an issue and not up far enough on anyone's agenda to bother about.
National Healthcare though is another thing.
National Healthcare though is another thing.
It'll be interesting to see how Democrats handle the Heller decision, whatever it may be.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 13, 2008, 10:41:36 PM
Upon traveling throughout MI, a visitor from outer space would conclude Ron Paul is about to win an election by a landslide.
"The empty barrel sounds the loudest."
Post by: grampster on January 14, 2008, 04:03:01 PM
Also, when the primary got moved up, part of the deal was that one HAD to declare if you wanted a Democrat ballot or a Republican ballot. This info is being turned over to the two parties. I believe this to be illegal, but no judge will adjudicate it so for fear of being ostracized by one of the parties.
As a result, I'm not voting. Neither is virtually everyone I know. In the past, you got a ballot that included both or all parties that met the ballot criteria. Then you voted. You could not split your ballot, or it was spoiled, rightly so, but your selection was secret.
In Michigan, we have virtually been stripped of our right to secret ballot and I hope nobody shows up at the polls. I'm thinking of picketing the polls and when the sheriff arrives I'll hand over my sign and go home.
Our Republic is in deep *expletive deleted*it and most are going along with it.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 14, 2008, 04:10:11 PM
I highly doubt a loss for Romney would take him out of the race. It's still way too early to predict anything. Only two states have voted so far, and neither are very representative of the rest of the country. So it's foolish to read to much into the results thus far.
Post by: SomeKid on January 14, 2008, 08:01:06 PM
Post by: jefnvk on January 14, 2008, 08:10:53 PM
Quote
Upon traveling throughout MI, a visitor from outer space would conclude Ron Paul is about to win an election by a landslide.
Just did my part to add to the Ron Paul advertising of MI
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 15, 2008, 09:59:07 AM
HTG, 3 states. Don't forget Wyoming.
You're right, I forgot Wyoming. Romney won Wyoming. I can't understand why anyone would believe that Romney needs to win in MI "or else". He performed very strongly in every state that's voted so far. He's polling near the top in the polls of all of the upcoming states. Romney is actually winning the Republican election.
Why on earth are people counting him out?
Post by: Racehorse on January 15, 2008, 10:25:13 AM
Why on earth are people counting him out?
Because they want him to be out.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 15, 2008, 10:34:43 AM
Post by: jefnvk on January 15, 2008, 11:22:51 AM
Quote
Support More Severe Punishments For Those Who Commit Crimes With A Firearm. Those who use a firearm during the commission of crime must be punished severely. The key is to provide law enforcement with the resources they need and punish criminals, not burden lawful gun owners.
Governor Romney does not believe we need any more gun laws in this country. Like President Bush, he would sign a gun law if it was carefully written to target weapons of unusual and unnecessary lethality or power.
Governor Romney does not believe we need any more gun laws in this country. Like President Bush, he would sign a gun law if it was carefully written to target weapons of unusual and unnecessary lethality or power.
There is Romney's stance from his website.
http://ontheissues.org/2008/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm
Not the worst, but much better choices exist. Speaks (At least to me) in a way he could go either way on gun issues, which would be a concern to me.
Huckabee:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=18
http://ontheissues.org/2008/Mike_Huckabee_Gun_Control.htm
Supports CCW, stand your ground laws, against Brady/AWB
Thompson (don't know if this is his official site or not):
http://www.fred08.com/Virtual/Media/GunsandCrime120507.pdf
http://ontheissues.org/2008/Fred_Thompson_Gun_Control.htm
Paul:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/second-amendment/
http://ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Gun_Control.htm
Wants to pull out of UN to prevent threat from them
McCain:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/77636553-6337-4ecd-b170-49e1c07d2fbd.htm
http://ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Gun_Control.htm
Gun-show checks on private party sales
Giulaini:
http://www.joinrudy2008.com/issues/view/9
http://ontheissues.org/2008/Rudy_Giuliani_Gun_Control.htm
His site very vauge on position, On the Issues has him very anti
Post by: ilbob on January 15, 2008, 12:23:53 PM
Post by: jefnvk on January 15, 2008, 12:59:49 PM
Quote
IIRC, Michigan only gets half its usual number of delegates because it did something to offend the RNC
Yep, we wanted to have a say in the election process. Really pisses off those in charge, when you dont play nice with their plans.
At least Republicans arent like Democrats, who get no votes from MI.
I fail to see why there is a problem with having all primary elections/caucuses the same day.
Post by: Matt King on January 15, 2008, 01:39:08 PM
Post by: jefnvk on January 15, 2008, 01:47:59 PM
I believe Florida is in the same trouble, they moved their primary to before Feb 5 as well.
Post by: Matt King on January 15, 2008, 02:05:27 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 15, 2008, 02:50:26 PM
When states like Michigan move their primaries forward they penalize the rest of the states that didn't. By trying to leapfrog over all the other states, they actually made the problem worse. Both parties were clear about what would happen if states moveed their election dates too far forward, yet some states decided to do so anyway.
Post by: Paddy on January 15, 2008, 03:20:45 PM
There are only two candidates even close to qualified IMO. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. I'd vote for either over any of the others.
Post by: SomeKid on January 15, 2008, 04:16:04 PM
jef, I would be against all states in one day, simply because it penalizes candidates who haven't the money to campaign nationwide early on. I think doing it regionally would be better than the current system though. Example, week 1: Midwest, Week 2 Northeast, Week 3 South, Week 4 West etc. Spread it out over about 7 weeks. If this system was a no go, I would then prefer your idea of all in the same day next. But I want the date moves towards April 15th. Under mystem, about the fourth week would be April 15. That way, it is smack in the middle of the primary. If all states voted on the same date, I would have it be sometime during the week after April 15th. What do you think?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 15, 2008, 05:09:12 PM
So, who's the next Republican "who must" win an election to stay in?
Post by: Matt King on January 15, 2008, 05:55:10 PM
Post by: jefnvk on January 15, 2008, 06:35:23 PM
Quote
Hmm. Angering Potential voters doesn't sound very smart on their part. You think they will lose votes in the general election because of this?
I've been pondering this. If nothing else, I think the lost campaigning time will hurt the Democrats, at least in MI and FL.
Regarding people not having the chance to campaign in all states if it were held the same day: I don't really see it being an issue. I think that in this day and age, media campaigning is much more important than in-person visits. And honestly, chances are if you don't have the money that the big spenders have, you aren't going to have a chance either way. I think that Ron Paul has shown us, even if you do have the money that the big front runners have, if you aren't a front runner, nothing is going to happen.
Either way, what does having one primary before the other do? Either peoples minds are made up, or they change their mind based who has or doesn't have momentum, not a good way to pick candidates.
Post by: GigaBuist on January 15, 2008, 08:04:56 PM
Quote
Hmm. Angering Potential voters doesn't sound very smart on their part. You think they will lose votes in the general election because of this?
I've been pondering this. If nothing else, I think the lost campaigning time will hurt the Democrats, at least in MI and FL.
I think you overestimate the average voter's attention span and ability to think for themselves. Right up until the election news agencies were running stories trying to explain the situation but voters were still confused. Seems plenty of Democrats sat home in Michigan because they didn't know what a vote for "Uncomitted" could do if the DNC actually hands delegates back to Michigan, which they'll do IMHO.
Heck, exit polls show an alarming number of people making up their minds in the last 3 days. That's an awful short period considering how long these campaigns have been running.
Quote
Either way, what does having one primary before the other do?
It gives the candidates, and the party, little tiny test beds for their ideas to see what works and what doesn't. It also affords them time to put together ads targeted to the state at hand. They can compare poll results in an individual state as they change their campaigns and see how well that worked. When it comes to the general election that's good information for the party to have.At least, that's the only reason I can think of for both major parties do this.
If they're honestly looking out for the little guy with no money they're doing something wrong.
Post by: jefnvk on January 15, 2008, 08:07:52 PM
Quote
If they're honestly looking out for the little guy with no money they're doing something wrong.
Point taken.
Post by: TwitchALot on January 15, 2008, 08:12:29 PM
I fail to see why there is a problem with having all primary elections/caucuses the same day.
Because then the small states would get ignored as the candidates head to places like California...?
Post by: jefnvk on January 15, 2008, 08:46:30 PM
Quote
Because then the small states would get ignored as the candidates head to places like California...?
So why not have the national election over lots of days?