USA: 2012 Republican Primaries - Romney carries New Hampshire 10 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#1 6 years ago

As expected, Romney performed strongly in New Hampshire, owing to the political inclinations being similar to his backyard in Massachusetts and New England. Most of the candidates expected this and hoped to try and take advantage of the platform given to them to attack Romney more on the road to South Carolina- a state whose political environment can allow another candidate make inroads against Romney.

New Hampshire's results breakdown:

Mitt Romney:-- 39.3%, 7 delegates Ron Paul:------ 22.9%, 3 delegates Jon Huntsman:- 16.9%, 2 delegates Newt Gingrich:--09.0%, N/A Rick Santorum:- 09.0%, N/A Rick Perry:------- 0.7%, N/A

The rest of the votes - 1.5%- was split up among lesser known or regional candidates. It also included small amount of votes for Herman Cain and Michelle Bachman who had suspended their primary run. New Hampshire had a total of 12 delegates- a deduction from its usual 23, a penalty by the RNC for moving its primary date earlier along with a number of other states.

Jon Huntsman probably got the best result here after being left in the shadows before, much like Santorum's placing in Iowa. Perry continues to flail at the bottom of the polls and I believe he'll probably be the next casualty if he doesn't post a respectable result in South Carolina if he doesn't decide to drop out now. Ron Paul was able to continue his success in Iowa over the others attempting to place themselves as the 'anti-Romney' by being able to carry delegates.




Andron Taps Forum Mod

Faktrl is Best Pony

261,593 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,746 Posts

1,754 Threads

#2 6 years ago

If anybody but Ron Paul gets the nominee, I'm not even going to consider voting. And Romney will probably be the Republican's guy, so I think it's safe to say that I'm going to stay home this November 6th =p


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



Fortune

something to believe.

50 XP

19th February 2005

0 Uploads

7,750 Posts

0 Threads

#3 6 years ago
computernerd;5600566If anybody but Ron Paul gets the nominee, I'm not even going to consider voting. And Romney will probably be the Republican's guy, so I think it's safe to say that I'm going to stay home this November 6th =p

Lord knows why. I just find it hard to believe Mitt Romney would even have a chance of getting elected, considering the United States has only ever even elected one Catholic president, a much more accepted religion than Mormonism in the states. As ugly a subject as it is, religion (Specifically the clause that says "You'd better have the same religion to me, the voter") is a pretty big selling point for a large, decisive portion of the voting population.

Really though, I haven't been following this election very closely. Ron Paul seems like the only candidate I find markedly interesting. It strikes me as embarrassing that this was the best group of guys the GOP could get to run for the Presidency, looking at the rest.

Then again, I did love me some Hermann Cain! :lulz:




AlDaja

SFC III Troubleshooter.

50 XP

5th September 2006

0 Uploads

11,263 Posts

0 Threads

#4 6 years ago

The only Party really pushing for Romney are Democrats. Why? Cause Obama will run him over come election time. Another election year where I'll stay home. :(




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#5 6 years ago

Romney may be a calm, soft-spoken sort of guy, but I don't think he's quite the pushover many think him to be. I'm not a Romney supporter but I'd vote for him in the general election over Obama.

Like I said, we need to splice a bunch of the candidates together.




Andron Taps Forum Mod

Faktrl is Best Pony

261,593 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,746 Posts

1,754 Threads

#6 6 years ago

I'm not so sure about that, it seems the general consensus among all of them is that they are in favor of fewer government regulations on businesses, which was/is one of the root causes of our severe economic decline.

And if you want a really good explanation for all our problems over the last decade, probably longer, just watch:


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



Demonseed VIP Member

Gettin' real tired of you ducking me, man...

50 XP

29th December 2004

0 Uploads

464 Posts

0 Threads

#7 6 years ago
computernerd;5600714I'm not so sure about that, it seems the general consensus among all of them is that they are in favor of fewer government regulations on businesses, which was/is one of the root causes of our severe economic decline.

As much as I hate to disagree with ANYONE who posts a George Carlin video, I have to in this case. Even though I find the entire crop of Republican candidates to be about as inspiring as a bucket or warm spit, I'd vote for any of them over Obama. OK, maybe not Huntsman, but still.

The fallacy you're stating here is that too little government regulation caused the economic decline. That's patently false. The economy was in a cyclical downturn, helping along by the cost of paying for two wars that showed no signs of ending anytime soon. Then came TARP, the auto company 'crisis' and the Bank bailout 'crisis.'

In all three cases, one under Bush and two under Obama, the government exceeded its purpose and its Constitutional power by interfering in the marketplace. The result of this was a massive loss of confidence in the financial sector. When confidence is lost, investment lessens. When investment lessens, the value of the dollar drops.

Contributing to this was Pres. Obama, who at times sounded like he was pro-business, but then passed a slew of anti-business laws and regulations. The net effect of those was to cause even more investors to hang onto their cash as a hedge against future need, be it for increased taxes or whatever.

Had the banks, auto companies and whoever else been allowed to fail, the system would have worked as intended, and we'd now have better, more streamlined auto companies. If not, we'd all be buying cars made overseas. By subsidizing these institutions, be they banks or corporations or both, the government has rewarded failure. That's the exact opposite of how the system is supposed to work. Thus, we now have the mistakes those folks made being repeated.

If you want to see the market take an upward turn, investment pick up, and companies bring jobs back into America, you need to make it worthwhile for those folks to make it happen.

In short, to understand the problem, you need only listen to the words of Ronald Reagan as he gave his first inaugural address:

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#8 6 years ago

Doesn't make sense. If you expected the government to interfere again you'd be investing your money into long term bonds, or diversifying into foreign currencies, to keep it safe. And the loss on the value of the dollar would be because you were selling dollars at a lower price than usual in order to make the trade to a more secure form of wealth. You'd essentially be selling risk as a knock on the value of the dollar.

...

Do I think government is responsible? Yes. But I'm not going to commit myself to a simple less legislation good/more legislation bad dichotomy. There are some rules that are needed, and there are some rules that are harmful. The question isn't whether we need to tightly regulate the financial sector, the question is how we regulate the financial sector to achieve wider aims. You get that warrant and you don't exceed it.




Demonseed VIP Member

Gettin' real tired of you ducking me, man...

50 XP

29th December 2004

0 Uploads

464 Posts

0 Threads

#9 6 years ago
Nemmerle;5600916Doesn't make sense. If you expected the government to interfere again you'd be investing your money into long term bonds, or diversifying into foreign currencies, to keep it safe. And the loss on the value of the dollar would be because you were selling dollars at a lower price than usual in order to make the trade to a more secure form of wealth. You'd essentially be selling risk as a knock on the value of the dollar.

Remember, a lot of these people are business owners. We're also talking about corporations who own assets like factories, property, etc. You can't just liquefy that stuff overnight to improve your financial position.

What you can do is curb investment, curtail expansion, and hunker down. In many cases a President presiding over a down economy is out the door after 4 years and replaced with one from the other party. If you know that the chance exists for that President to be more business-friendly, or at least not openly hostile to business, you just dig in to wait it out.

After all, any cash you save is still going to be there in a few years, and you've made the interest on it at no risk. Once the investment climate improves, you go back to doing things the way you used to.

These companies (and people) tend to take the long view of things. 4 years is not a long period of time in terms of major corporation.




Andron Taps Forum Mod

Faktrl is Best Pony

261,593 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,746 Posts

1,754 Threads

#10 6 years ago
Demonseed;5600913The fallacy you're stating here is that too little government regulation caused the economic decline. That's patently false.

I didn't state that as the sole reason, it was just part of a bigger picture. Forgive me for being too specific, or maybe too general, but please don't assume I'm trying to pin everything on that one issue. I do realize that things are not that simple. Maybe the video was too much too apply to the economic decline of the last decade, but I, like many others, I'm sure you as well, are really quite frustrated with our current crop of leaders.

In regards to the next President, Obama was no prize, but I'm just not convinced that any one of these guys (or gal) will actually turn things around; I'd really love to be proven wrong though.


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



  • 1
  • 2