So in the end after the 2008 economic collapse and multi-trillion dollar bank bailouts, the Republicans are running an ultra-wealthy vulture capitalist to unseat Obama.

Romney hasn't provided a detailed plan on what he intends to do as POTUS. His website is nothing more than some brief wisps. He's creepy and awkward. And he's going to get clobbered.

In the end Romney is going to do so poorly that he will end up giving an unpopular president a 2nd term mandate.

Thanks for nothing Republicans.

I just wanted to post this picture for its sheer creepiness

Deeply disturbing. I note, as an aside, that Romney has the deeper tan.

I hadn't noticed. They look the same to me!

In 2008, Romney got 51% of the vote in Nevada. Today he won with 43% of the vote. 1 in 4 caucus voters were Mormons. In 2008 he got 95% of their vote.

So are you Republicans looking forward to being creamed by an unpopular POTUS in the general election?

The problem with this thesis is you are assuming those who don't vote for Romney in the primary will not vote for him in the general election. This is not a valid argument. Do you honestly believe that somebody voting for Gingrinch, Santorum or Paul will honestly vote for Obama over Romney?

Of course you could be arguing that Romney isn't pulling in enough conservatives and they will stay home on election day. However, Jay Cost pretty much shoots that argument down here where he shows that Romney is pulling in more conservative votes then any one other primary candidate.

Overall turnout for the republican caucuses were down. Possibly because the process was confusing but possibly due to lack of excitement.
And 25% of voters were Mormons... according to exit polls. Who voted 90+% plus for Mitt.
Nevada might not be the best gauge going forward.
However Tuesday ...if he wins all three he's home and colled out, and I'll bet Gingrich runs out of money and steam. The threat on Tuesday is probably more Santorum...

The primaries have been bruising for Mitt, and he hasn't really sold his base. Plus the polling seems to indicate he's losing ground to Obama . Either thats based on the electorate getting to know him better, or the economy improving or both... But there's no reason to expect that the Fall will see a less bruising battle.
I think Neals thesis is a bit thin, because for what ever labels Mitt gets dealt by opponents, its going to be the perception of what he is going to do for voters that will sway them. Unfortunately for Mitt, so far, he's not said or offered much that alters the preconception that Neals labels offer. His, "I don't worry about the poor" line a fine example of offering a clear look into his priorities. .
There's lots of time however.... the direction of opinion is trending to Obama at the moment.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Ah, ricky, don't take Romney's comment about the poor out of context. I said he doesn't worry about them because there's a safety net.

Of course he wants to reduce that safety net, but hey. Then he can have some concern for the poor, I suppose. Until then, he can concentrate of the plight of the wealthy.

Nice that you take the half of the sentence out of context. I have linked it for you. He said nothing about the "plight of the wealthy".
[url]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/0 ... 49531.html[/url]

"I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it," Romney told CNN Wednesday morning. "I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

retract your untruth...

[crickets]

b

Nice that you take the half of the sentence out of context. I have linked it for you. He said nothing about the "plight of the wealthy

The problem isn't the verbatim of what he said. The problem is the entirety of his message and how this comment, and the way he said it, repeated;y, fits into his entire message. What the interviewer heard and responded to mitt was the "I'm not worried about the Poor".
And the somewhat cavalier way he characterized the safety net ...
It plays worse when seen, then when read.
And unfortunately for Mitt its juxtaposed with his own low income tax rate and the constant battle against tax increases on the wealthy by Mitt and republicans at large. Its about defining the suggestion that tax rates on the wealthy should go back to rates acceptable 8 years ago ...as class war fare. Its about consciously defending the new benefits of the rich, and cavalierly suggsting the poor will be all right with the apparently lavish beneifts they receive.
The connotation that the CNN interviewer (soledad obrien, who has spent a lot of time on issues of poverty in the US in her CNN special reports) ) has when she responds and asks for a clarification is that he really doesn't care....And by explaining himself three times,he only reinforced that impression.

Mitt obviously knew somehow he got it wrong because he did come out and say he "misspoke". Which if he did, he misspoke three times in a row saying exactly the same thing.

Was I claiming to quote him with 'plight of the wealthy'? I just figured he knows thier pain first hand and would be a fine representative of the wealth creating / hoarding classes.

Mach - barely a comment for ages then you give 15 minutes for someone to respond? What's with that?

Context, context, let's all have a looksie at the video and then walk away with our own opinions of how this shakes out.

We can't all take a look at it, as it's not available in the UK.