http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/m...story.html

I guess that since Santorum is out of the way, Romney needs to check the rest of the GOP boxes before moving on to independents:

[x] Big Business
[ ] Christian Right
[ ] Tea Party
[ ] Military Hawks

To be fair, the Dems have their own boxes to check but Obama has had not major hurdles in knocking them out.

Obama should have a head start on the the independents who, at this stage, only really have one box: Economic Growth.

(04-19-2012 11:35 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/m...story.html

I guess that since Santorum is out of the way, Romney needs to check the rest of the GOP boxes before moving on to independents:

[x] Big Business
[ ] Christian Right
[ ] Tea Party
[ ] Military Hawks

To be fair, the Dems have their own boxes to check but Obama has had not major hurdles in knocking them out.

Obama should have a head start on the the independents who, at this stage, only really have one box: Economic Growth.

I don't think independents are too happy about us still being in a war,the growth of the police state and the increased bureaucracy of the Federal government under Obama.

(04-19-2012 11:35 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/m...story.html

I guess that since Santorum is out of the way, Romney needs to check the rest of the GOP boxes before moving on to independents:

[x] Big Business
[ ] Christian Right
[ ] Tea Party
[ ] Military Hawks

To be fair, the Dems have their own boxes to check but Obama has had not major hurdles in knocking them out.

Obama should have a head start on the the independents who, at this stage, only really have one box: Economic Growth.

It's always that way for the incumbent / challenger..

After last seasons primary Obama had to re win over the Hillary and blue dog dems..

I'm not sure Romney moving rightwards is a surprise. It's politics 101.

Who else is the Christian right going to vote for? They may not like Romney, but they certainly like Obama less.

As usual, it's really not a matter of voting for someone, but rather against someone.

(04-19-2012 01:19 PM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  As usual, it's really not a matter of voting for someone, but rather against someone.

it's always that way

(04-19-2012 01:19 PM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  Who else is the Christian right going to vote for? They may not like Romney, but they certainly like Obama less.

As usual, it's really not a matter of voting for someone, but rather against someone.

They could stay home. I agree that they don't have to like Romney, but they have to be comfortable enough to actually show up and vote for him. The last thing that Romney wants is the christian right sitting this one out because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for either candidate.

(04-19-2012 01:19 PM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  Who else is the Christian right going to vote for? They may not like Romney, but they certainly like Obama less.

As usual, it's really not a matter of voting for someone, but rather against someone.

Always voting agains the incumbent is my new strategy. Course, that is really easy in the liberal pair-of-dice that is Minneapolis.

(04-19-2012 01:15 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I'm not sure Romney moving rightwards is a surprise. It's politics 101.

Usually its the opposite... Usually in the primaries you try to capture the base and then slide to the center in the general. The assumption is "who else are they going to vote for"

Personally Romney is the one guy I could not vote for on the GOP side. Most of them would have been good enough for me to choke back my vomit and vote for.

(04-19-2012 01:19 PM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  Who else is the Christian right going to vote for? They may not like Romney, but they certainly like Obama less.

(04-19-2012 01:32 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-19-2012 01:15 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I'm not sure Romney moving rightwards is a surprise. It's politics 101.

Usually its the opposite... Usually in the primaries you try to capture the base and then slide to the center in the general. The assumption is "who else are they going to vote for"

Personally Romney is the one guy I could not vote for on the GOP side. Most of them would have been good enough for me to choke back my vomit and vote for.

A perfect example! Romney is going to try to get BIE to move from "could not vote for" to "choke back vomit and vote for."

Only THEN can he pivot to the center. The challenge will be to not lose BIE in the process.

(04-19-2012 01:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-19-2012 01:19 PM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  Who else is the Christian right going to vote for? They may not like Romney, but they certainly like Obama less.

Abortions for all!
[crowd boos]
Very well, no abortions for anyone!
[crowd boos]
Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
[crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]


Kang: The politics of failure have failed. We need to make them work again. Tomorrow, when you are sealed in the voting cubicle, vote for me, Senator Ka... Bob Dole.
[applause]
Kodos: I am looking forward to an orderly election tomorrow, which will eliminate the need for a violent blood bath.
[applause]

(04-19-2012 01:53 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(04-19-2012 01:32 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-19-2012 01:15 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I'm not sure Romney moving rightwards is a surprise. It's politics 101.

Usually its the opposite... Usually in the primaries you try to capture the base and then slide to the center in the general. The assumption is "who else are they going to vote for"

Personally Romney is the one guy I could not vote for on the GOP side. Most of them would have been good enough for me to choke back my vomit and vote for.

A perfect example! Romney is going to try to get BIE to move from "could not vote for" to "choke back vomit and vote for."

Only THEN can he pivot to the center. The challenge will be to not lose BIE in the process.

lol I'm sure he is sweating over the fiscal libertarian social conservative... Sorry Mitten's powder is best spent walking a tight rope between who he was as gov of MA and who he claims to be now.

(04-19-2012 02:06 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-19-2012 01:53 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(04-19-2012 01:32 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-19-2012 01:15 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I'm not sure Romney moving rightwards is a surprise. It's politics 101.

Usually its the opposite... Usually in the primaries you try to capture the base and then slide to the center in the general. The assumption is "who else are they going to vote for"

Personally Romney is the one guy I could not vote for on the GOP side. Most of them would have been good enough for me to choke back my vomit and vote for.

A perfect example! Romney is going to try to get BIE to move from "could not vote for" to "choke back vomit and vote for."

Only THEN can he pivot to the center. The challenge will be to not lose BIE in the process.

lol I'm sure he is sweating over the fiscal libertarian social conservative... Sorry Mitten's powder is best spent walking a tight rope between who he was as gov of MA and who he claims to be now.

Fair point.

Serious question: Is Romney (actually) pro-choice? I feel like he is, but I don't know which side of the debate he was pretending to be on at any given time.

(04-19-2012 02:25 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(04-19-2012 02:06 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-19-2012 01:53 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(04-19-2012 01:32 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-19-2012 01:15 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I'm not sure Romney moving rightwards is a surprise. It's politics 101.

Usually its the opposite... Usually in the primaries you try to capture the base and then slide to the center in the general. The assumption is "who else are they going to vote for"

Personally Romney is the one guy I could not vote for on the GOP side. Most of them would have been good enough for me to choke back my vomit and vote for.

A perfect example! Romney is going to try to get BIE to move from "could not vote for" to "choke back vomit and vote for."

Only THEN can he pivot to the center. The challenge will be to not lose BIE in the process.

lol I'm sure he is sweating over the fiscal libertarian social conservative... Sorry Mitten's powder is best spent walking a tight rope between who he was as gov of MA and who he claims to be now.

Fair point.

Serious question: Is Romney (actually) pro-choice? I feel like he is, but I don't know which side of the debate he was pretending to be on at any given time.

He's pro-mitt that's all we really know...

Even if he did come around to the right side of that issue the timing is way too convenient for me to buy it. He had already decided not to run for Governor again and had his eyes set on the white house. We all saw with Rudy what happens when a Republican tries to run nationally as a pro choice candidate, at least Rudy did not pander on the issue.

Had he taken defeat in 2008 and run for another office and worked for the pro-life cause (rather than parroting platitudes) I *might* be able to vote for him. People do change, but I don't think Mitt has..

(04-19-2012 02:25 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Serious question: Is Romney (actually) pro-choice? I feel like he is, but I don't know which side of the debate he was pretending to be on at any given time.

I think for Romney, the pretense about abortion is more basic than "which side of the debate" to be on; it's about pretending to care about the issue at all, when (in reality) he's not concerned with it, one way or the other.

(04-19-2012 11:40 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-19-2012 11:35 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/m...story.html

I guess that since Santorum is out of the way, Romney needs to check the rest of the GOP boxes before moving on to independents:

[x] Big Business
[ ] Christian Right
[ ] Tea Party
[ ] Military Hawks

To be fair, the Dems have their own boxes to check but Obama has had not major hurdles in knocking them out.

Obama should have a head start on the the independents who, at this stage, only really have one box: Economic Growth.

I don't think independents are too happy about us still being in a war,the growth of the police state and the increased bureaucracy of the Federal government under Obama.

Those first two points aren't winning points for the GOP either. The war started under the GOP, and if anything the police state is going to be considered conservative policy (patriot act). Right or wrong, those first two issues are losers or neutral at best for the GOP with indy's.