Downticket Republicans distance themselves from toxic Romney

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Apparently that's only 47% of the country. Why hasn't Romney won over anyone who isn't in his base? Is that Obama's fault?

Yes. Republicans are never responsible for anything they do.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Apparently that's only 47% of the country. Why hasn't Romney won over anyone who isn't in his base? Is that Obama's fault?

You act as if the decision has already been made. No need to have an election. How pompous of you!

[Penny Lane 8,159]

You act as if the decision has already been made. No need to have an election. How pompous of you!

I was merely responding to your post that you sense it will be another 4 years. I was expanding on that. I've never once said Obama will win. I've always said if.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I was merely responding to your post that you sense it will be another 4 years. I was expanding on that. I've never once said Obama will win. I've always said if.

You assume I was talking about an Obama win.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

So you believe a Romney win would be "4 more lost years"? Okay then. Agreed.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So you believe a Romney win would be "4 more lost years"? Okay then. Agreed.

I suspect it won't make much difference either way.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Huntsman was their best hope of winning back the presidency.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Huntsman was their best hope of winning back the presidency.

Libs

Ron Paul! FTW!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ron Paul! FTW!

If you believe that Ron Paul would have had a better chance at winning in November than Mitt, you are clearly delusional. If he was that strong a candidate, he would have won the Republican nomination. Couldn't even win that one. Not only could he not win that but he actually had a pretty poor showing in the contests. It's not like he was a close second. Or third, for that matter.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If you believe that Ron Paul would have had a better chance at winning in November than Mitt, you are clearly delusional.

Better chance? idk Better choice? Yep.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Better chance? idk Better choice? Yep.

Well, that statement puts you into a tiny minority.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well, that statement puts you into a tiny minority.

Reluctantly, yes. Hopefully someone with similar ideas, no skeletons in the closet, and more charisma will appear on the scene soon.

[kytwell 179]

2 of the 3 are trying to win seats in Lib states. No surprise that they would try to distance themselves.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

2 of the 3 are trying to win seats in Lib states. No surprise that they would try to distance themselves.

So they are really supporting Romney's offensive remarks - or are these just ignorant remarks? - but are lying to the people of these states in order to get elected? Fine Republicans they are. If what you say is true, then these bums deserve to lose their races.

[kytwell 179]

So they are really supporting Romney's offensive remarks - or are these just ignorant remarks? - but are lying to the people of these states in order to get elected? Fine Republicans they are. If what you say is true, then these bums deserve to lose their races.

OFC they are lying to get elected; they're politicians. Look at all the promises Barack made, while trying to get elected. He had an issue at one point and distanced himself from Rev. Wright, although he spent 20 yrs in his church. By your same standard he's a bum and deserves to lose his race.

Scott Brown is about as bi-partisan as they come. He has only voted along party lines about 58 or 64% of the time. We need more Senator's like him, who put country over party. The Warren woman he's running against, is a partisan lib, we need less of her type--the partisan part, not necessarily the lib part.