gut;1109344 wrote:^^^LMFAO.

For starters, I'm not sure what that's supposed to be an indictment of. My only guess that it's supposed to imply he would have preferred Paul, and then Santorum. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out why.

Second, this HAS to be fake. You'd have to be the dumbass of the century to wire tap Obama or record a cell phone conversation without his knowledge.

Unless, maybe this is an intentional leak trying reverse pyschology. Make people think he feels Romney is the tougher opponent when he's really afraid of Santorum. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Cleveland Buck;1109351 wrote:It was an open mic. And no one gives a **** about his preference, the key part was talking about the fraud used by the GOP against Paul.

HitsRus;1109301 wrote:Does this sound like something Paul would align with?
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/153566

HitsRus;1109301 wrote:Does this sound like something Paul would align with?
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/153566

ptown_trojans_1;1109434 wrote:Here is a good question I just thought of that needs to be asked to all 4 R's.
How do they plan to deal with the Senate in order to handle the debt problem?

Will they compromise with D's on taxes? Will they touch SS and Medicare?
How will they get past 60 votes?

Otherwise, anything debt wise and balancing budget wise they mention is pure BS.

President Bush made a lot of promises, but his domestic policy died in Congress.
Obama has made simliar broad domestic changes, but aside from the healthcare law (which is awful), he has no real successes.

gut;1108555 wrote:And Romney is actually a great foil to Obama's biggest failings - he has a proven track record in Massachusetts, and he's got a great background in business/investment. Seems like it's not a difficult message to convey. Certainly much more palatable to moderates/Dems than the other Repubs. The primary voters who prefer the others right now, they're not staying home and they ain't voting Obama because, ultimately, Obama eats at much of their core much more so than Romney fails to be their ideal candidate. Which means Romney stands to gain far more than he will lose vs. the rest of the field. That's why this "electability" issue seems a bit bogus to me - guy DID get elected gov of one of the most liberal states, after all.

I completely disagree people are voting for the others in hopes to get some white knight to enter in the 11th hour. Those others aren't electable - they each appeal strongly to a special "interest" group, but lack broad appeal. Really just strikes me as people pounding the table to get Romney to embrace more of their values. Not going to happen in the general and would be bull**** if it did. Those people will begrudgingly pull the lever for Romney because the simple fact is Obama is for far too much that they are not - they are the strongest ABO base.

believer;1108567 wrote:True but the wild card is the Paulbotoid vote. It'll be interesting to see if most of the Paulists will pull the lever for Willard, write-in their hero's name, or simply abstain.

jhay78;1111839 wrote:Newt says he's staying in it no matter what happens in Alabama and Mississippi. I'm not sure if he really means it and is the most stubborn guy ever or if he's trying to drum up a positive attitude. He's won his own backyard states of SC and GA and has gotten rocked everywhere else, as in 3rd or 4th. I would think most who are turned off by Romney would like to see Newt drop out.

sjmvsfscs08;1116451 wrote:That would be a 269-269 tie, and the US House of Representatives gets to decide the election.

Boom. Craziest election in history.

Ty Webb;1116386 wrote:So the final tally(IMO) could either be 319-219 for President Obama or he would eke out a win with a final tally of 272-266

believer;1116582 wrote:Webby, where have ya been man? Guess you were waiting for an Obama-favorable poll, eh?

believer;1112148 wrote:Quite true. I don't know why Newt keeps hanging on except that he thinks he'll at least have a voice in the GOP convention.

This is just a situation where none of the top 4 GOP candidates are attractive as stand alone's.

If only we could take Willard's business acumen and elect-ability, pepper that with Paul's economic common-sense, toss in a little of Rick's social conservatism, and salt it down with Newt's communication skills we'd have an ideal GOP candidate.

Ty Webb;1116650 wrote:Many friendly polls my friend-many

IMO,from what I've read and heard about Rubio.....his ego is WAY too big to accept the No.2 spot

I also believe that Romney is going to struggle to get a top tier VP pick because alot of them will look at the tough situation Romney may be in for the general and many of them will wait till 2016 to run for the nomination. Plus,if Romney picks Rubio,one of his big arguments againist President Obama will go right out the window. It may have the same effect picking Palin did for McCain

stlouiedipalma;1116721 wrote:That's a pretty good wish list, right up there with "If my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle".

Unfortunately you have to pick your poison this time.

Manhattan Buckeye;1116745 wrote:As opposed to the poison we picked in '08. In a race with 100 runners, you don't need to be the first to defeat the last, 99th place still wins over 100th. Unfortunately for all of us we picked the 100th and are suffering for it.