| Results for New Hampshire Republican Primary (U.S. Presidential Primary) |
| Jan 10, 2012 (24% of precincts reporting) |
| Mitt Romney | 15,368 | 35.4% |  |
| Ron Paul | 10,780 | 24.9% | |
| Jon Huntsman | 7,313 | 16.9% | |
| Newt Gingrich | 4,451 | 10.3% | |
| Rick Santorum | 4,412 | 10.2% | |
Do you remember what I told you people in yesterday's posting at the top of the other blog? I said that Gingrich, Santorum and Perry's votes combined wouldn't ammount to 25% If you doubt me here, there are the results right above. Those three candidates together add up to 21% Of course you hear this bull crap on Fox news saying for Romney to have scored a real victory he needed to get fifty percent of the vote. Let's get real for a moment. Is it realistic for one candidate to get fifty percent of the vote in a field of six candidates still running? No. They say that Romney's eleven percent margin over second is a weak showing. Let's look again. Ron Paul came in second and he is a civil libertarian and probably has a lot of the Independant vote going for him wanting to make a "statement" against the Obama administration. So then can you look at third place to derive a margin over his "conservative opponents". No. John Huntsman is to the LEFT of Mitt Romney politically. Huntsman at 17% may be the best he can hope to do in any Primary and that number has to be a disappointment for him New Hampshire was his best shot and now it's time to pack it in. No. You have to go all the way down to Santorum and Gingrich at just over ten percent to derive an actual margin of victory over his conservative rivals. And that figure is indeed the predicted 25% that they predicted he would win over his conservative rivals by. So FOX news had to admit that all the attack adds and adverse publicity did not hurt Romney - - - at least in these numbers.
Mitt Romney sure didn't want to announce victory to his fans. He was on the air making a speech. But that speech really should have been playing to a laugh track, and as an Obama supporter that's just how they should air it in adds. Because it's plain for all to see - - the record is laid bare before the Media at last and even people in South Carolina can give this whole "joblessness is good" thing a fair rolling over in their minds. Joblessness is JUST what you'd have if Rick Perry got elected and had his way with the Federal Reserve. Keep in mind there are right wing Christians with no regard for their country out there who are secretly wishing for an economic crash next year, for their own sado-masochistic reasons. I expect Rick Perry to have an amazing resurgence in South Carolina thanks to skillful use of anti Romney advertizing and exploitative speeches. But of course such talk will backfire with the voters come November when SC and everybody else realizes that to Prevent a massive re emergence of a Recession and unemployment deboccle by uncaring corporatists, that they need to reelect President Obama.
But aside from all this apparently good news for Democrats is tempered by a CBS poll measuring up President Obama against each Republican front runner. Here there is not a dime's worth of difference between the results now and in September, when the President was in deep doo-doo and people like me despired of his ever being reelected. Then, as now there were some Republican candidates who were just ahead of him in a match and some which were just behind him. This time Romney leads the President 47% to 45%. So we are led to believe that the American people at large would cast a higher percentage for Romney than he got from his own party. Ron Paul noses the President out by a percentage point. Just below the President in vote match ups are Santorum and Gingrich, in that order. So for those friends of mine on the right, their plum candidate would be America's fourth choice to run against the President. And personally I think "fourth place" is a post we should think about eliminating from the race pretty soon. I do not know what STILL plagues the President and accounts for his weak numbers in this CBS poll. I assume it's the trouble we are having with Iran. Perhaps people are concerned that Iran and Meliki of Iraq will form an alliance and somehow the United States will suffer from that. If so it is a grave of our own making. But try this one on for size. Conservatives place Ronald Reagan on a pedistal as a moral icon. And yet it was President Reagan who sold weapons to Iran, our enemy, to fight against Iraq, who at that time we were calling our friend. And even with our help Iran STILL lost that war. I hardly see how that makes Ronald Reagan a winner. What was Ronnie boy thinking? How can Born Again Christians defend supporting Iran like that? Technically wouldn't that mean that our own President was comitting Treason? Look it up! Frankly if I were President Obama I'd make amends for all this softness on Iran in the past and be polishing up those Nuclear warheads because we want them to look good when they are hurling through space headed to Iranian nuclear plants.
Some people have asked me why I don't ask all these dead people I talk to more direct questions than I do. Well - - basically I'm too easily intimidated bu authority. I don't want to risk a relationship by challenging it, unless I'm pretty sure I want to get rid of it anyhow, or don't care if I do. I tend to opperate this way in the material world with people. People get paranoid when asked questions and if you ask a question they don't want to answer it creates strain on the relationship. That's not to say there aren't times I don't ask Mal or Stu a question, but it isn't the usual modas opperandi. I try usually to glean answers from things they say and hints they drop due to the way they word things. The way I figure it, I'm still a major leg up on people with no contact with the Other Side at all. And I question a lot of stuff Sylvia Brown says. Sometimes I actually agree with her "impressions" myself. But often I feel she is "all wrong" in reading a certain situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment