California - Mccain 38%, Romney 38%

[avatar4321]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/california/election_2008_california_republican_presidential_p rimary

California may not be winner take all, but here is another state where Romney is seriously picking up momentum.

[typomaniac]

Giuliani had a huge bloc of votes here in California. You can bet that almost none of them are going to switch to Romney.

[avatar4321]

Giuliani had a huge bloc of votes here in California. You can bet that almost none of them are going to switch to Romney.

I am not sure Im willing to bet anything on this race. Who the hell knows what will happen next? I never thought McCain would be in this now. I never through Giuliani would be out before Super Tuesday. Anyone who says they know how this will end is either completely arogant or naive.

However, i do think Tuesday will likely surprise alot of people. Possibly even me.

[gabosaurus]

Don't forget that California has a very large military population. Most of whom will gravitate to McCain. I think Romney will finish a distant second.

[Sitarro]

Don't forget that California has a very large military population. Most of whom will gravitate to McCain. I think Romney will finish a distant second.

I understand that you and most Democrats think the military is populated with a bunch of uneducated bubbas but I believe people in the military are well informed and are interested in the welfare of our country. They will vote for who they believe to be the best leader not who was a POW 35 years ago. Just like John Kerry Heinz, McCain has a track record in the Senate, THAT is who he is. Since there are few Mexican or Black Republicans in California, they shouldn't be a factor. Since Arnold is obviously a girlie man who is led by the nose ring by Maria, I doubt his endorsement will help McCain either.

[Pale Rider]

Don't forget that California has a very large military population. Most of whom will gravitate to McCain. I think Romney will finish a distant second.

Oh I beg to differ... the military as a whole is most solidly behind Ron Paul.

[avatar4321]

update:


Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, led McCain 40 percent to 32 percent in California, where the margin of error was 3.3 percentage points. A win in California, the most populous state, could help puncture McCain's growing momentum in the Republican nomination fight.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0345866120080204?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

[gabosaurus]

The reason why military people tend to gravitate toward McCain is that McCain is a former member of the military who still supports their causes.
We shall see who is right.

[Pale Rider]

The reason why military people tend to gravitate toward McCain is that McCain is a former member of the military who still supports their causes.
We shall see who is right.

No... the majority of military people DON'T support mclame. I tried to tell you they support Ron Paul. Now I'll prove it...


It appears our military backs Ron Paul in the most important issue facing the United States: Terrorism and our foreign policy. For the second time in a row, Ron Paul receives more donations among Republicans. Data for Democrats is not yet available, but Ron Paul crushed Democrats in this statistic last quarter as well. Candidate [Air Force] [Army] [Navy] [Marines] [Coast Guard] [Other*] [Total]

Brownback [151] [0] [0] [0] [0] [250] [401]
Cox [0] [0] [0] [0] [0] [0] [0]
Guiliani [1,250] [750] [1,500] [1,000] [0] [0] [4,500]
Huckabee [2,050] [1,200] [2,850] [0] [250] [260] [6,610]
Hunter [0] [500] [0] [0] [0] [30] [530]
McCain [4,120] [7,972] [6,645] [1,721] [100] [800] [21,358]
Paul [7,450] [17,998.96] [7,227.76] [2,740] [800] [4,200] [40,416.72]
Romney [500] [3,410] [750] [800] [0] [250] [5,710]
Thompson [4,800] [5,825] [6,350] [800] [23] [2,600] [20,398]

Ron Paul: $40K
McCain: $21K
Thompson:20K

http://incontiguousbrick.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/military-supports-ron-paul/

[glockmail]

Don't forget that California has a very large military population. Most of whom will gravitate to McCain. I think Romney will finish a distant second.

I am so glad to see Gabby's prediction here. Since she is almost always wrong, this means that Romney will win California and this McCain Nightmare will be over in 24 hours.

[avatar4321]

I am so glad to see Gabby's prediction here. Since she is almost always wrong, this means that Romney will win California and this McCain Nightmare will be over in 24 hours.

nothings over in 24 hours. this race continues till the convention i bet you.

[glockmail]

nothings over in 24 hours. this race continues till the convention i bet you.
Since you are rarely wrong why don't I just pay you the dollar now? :laugh2:

He's a tough old bastard and will hang on- unless he loses his temper and strokes out.

It's great to see Talk Radio have an impact, just like it did for McCain's amnesty bill.

[Pale Rider]

nothings over in 24 hours. this race continues till the convention i bet you.


Since you are rarely wrong why don't I just pay you the dollar now? :laugh2:

He's a tough old bastard and will hang on- unless he loses his temper and strokes out.

It's great to see Talk Radio have an impact, just like it did for McCain's amnesty bill.

I hope he loses and has a heart attack. I know it's a rotten thing to say, but he is not what this country needs.

[red states rule]

I hope he loses and has a heart attack. I know it's a rotten thing to say, but he is not what this country needs.

I do hope conservatives come to their senses and goes with Romney.

McCain will do no better then Bob Dole did in 96. Then we wil have to pick up the pieces, and try to repair the damage a Dem run government inflects on us

[PostmodernProphet]

I hope he loses and has a heart attack.

wtf.....could you folks possibly get any more disgusting?.......

[red states rule]

There are many reasons why conservatives should not back McCain

snip

Where Bush has been at his best, cutting taxes and nominating conservative judges, McCain has been his nemesis. Not only did he vote twice against the Bush tax cuts, McCain colluded to sell out the most conservative of Bush’s judges

In 1993, McCain voted to confirm the pro-abortion liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But when Bush set out to restore constitutionalism, McCain formed the Gang of 14, seven senators from each party. All agreed to vote to block the GOP Senate from invoking the “nuclear option”—i.e., empowering the GOP to break a filibuster of judicial nominees by majority vote—unless the seven Democrats agreed.

With this record of voting for Clinton justices and joining with Democrats anxious to kill the most conservative Bush’s nominees, what guarantee is there a President McCain would nominate and fight for the fifth jurist who would vote to overturn Roe v Wade?

McCain also colluded with liberals to pass McCain-Feingold, a law that denies to Second Amendment folks and right-to-lifers their First Amendment right to identify friends and foes in TV ads before national elections.

On ANWAR, too, McCain votes with the liberals, and on global warming he has moved toward Gore.

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/buchanan.html

[Kathianne]

wtf.....could you folks possibly get any more disgusting?.......

Who's 'you folks'? Seems to me you were complaining of someone speaking for 'you' too?

[red states rule]

Howie Carr nailes McCain is this op-ed


Sen. McAmnesty is here to thumb nose at Mitt

Welcome to Boston, Sen. McAmnesty. How ’bout them Patriots [team stats]? Er, I mean, never mind.

It’s odd that on the eve of Super Tuesday, the 71-year-old Republican front-runner would be here, in his top challenger’s home state, where he’s running a mere 32 points behind.

Why isn’t he stumping in California, the nation’s biggest state? Out there he’s running neck and neck, or just a little behind, Mitt Romney ahead. If Mitt somehow pulls out a victory in the Golden State tomorrow, he stays alive.

McCain’s already wrapped up the three big winner-take-all states on the East Coast - New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. He shouldn’t be within three time zones of here. He ought to be out in L.A. trying to give Mitt a headshot, rather than kicking him in the groin back here in Boston.

Especially when the local team was playing in the Super Bowl. Did McCain think he was going to get a big ride on the 11 o’clock news last night?


for the complete article

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1071093

[PostmodernProphet]

Who's 'you folks'? Seems to me you were complaining of someone speaking for 'you' too?

????...I would think that would be obvious in the context, but 'you folks' referred to people hoping that someone had a heart attack so it would further their political goals.....and Pale, in response to your neg rep message, it isn't an act, in this situation I AM holier than thou.....

[glockmail]

wtf.....could you folks possibly get any more disgusting?.......Yes he could. We are talking about Pale here.:cheers2:

[typomaniac]

Who's 'you folks'? Seems to me you were complaining of someone speaking for 'you' too?

Mittler doesn't speak for anyone but himself. He's as much of a lying sack of dung as Jimmy Swaggart.


I hope he [McCain] loses and has a heart attack. I know it's a rotten thing to say, but he is not what this country needs.
Why stop there, Pale? You should hope he wins the nomination, picks Tancredo as his running mate, gets into the White House, and THEN has a heart attack. :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

????...I would think that would be obvious in the context, but 'you folks' referred to people hoping that someone had a heart attack so it would further their political goals.....and Pale, in response to your neg rep message, it isn't an act, in this situation I AM holier than thou.....

Again, it wasn't 'you folks', that was one person.

[nevadamedic]

The reason why military people tend to gravitate toward McCain is that McCain is a former member of the military who still supports their causes.
We shall see who is right.

Don't forget made one of the ultimate sacrafices for our country, spent over five years being savagly beaten and tortured on a daily basis.

[nevadamedic]

wtf.....could you folks possibly get any more disgusting?.......

That's ok, I hope he picks up an STD from his boyfriend.

[Classact]

Could this guy be speaking the truth? http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2008/02/05/republican_party_cant_afford_more_liberal_leaders

[manu1959]

Could this guy be speaking the truth? http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2008/02/05/republican_party_cant_afford_more_liberal_leaders

good article....and yes i belive he is correct....americans in general are centrists and the right is moving left and the left is moving left......however, the far left and the far right are shrill and anoying and mccain is targeting the middle and ignoring both wings....obama and hillary are both on the left and romney paul and huckabee on the right....

extreme politics turn people off......mccain may not be a conservative but he is reading the majority of americans correctly.....no weather he is reading the majority of voting americans correctly is another issue.....remember 1/2 of america doesn't vote....

[theHawk]

What cracks me up is how all these so-called conservatives are crying they don't have a true conservative candidate. Where the hell were these people a couple months ago? Where was the support for true conservatives like Hunter, Trancredo, and to a lesser extent Thompson?

The other thing that cracks me up about all these anti-McCain folk is how they are now redefining what it means to be a conservative. So he voted againt the Bush tax cuts for the super rich? Is the definition of a conservative someone who votes for every single tax cut every time no matter what the consequences? McCain was concerned about spending and rightfully so, look where we are now with the deficits and budgets. This makes him a liberal?

I always thought conservatism was defined by standing by your principles. Like being pro-life 100% of the time, defending the 2nd Amendment, and being strong on national security. These things McCain has always been strong on, can't say the same for Romney...yet we don't hear and see these outraged conservatives going after Romney the same way they do McCain.

[PostmodernProphet]

Again, it wasn't 'you folks', that was one person.

/shrugs....I don't know....one poster here wished death on a person and another called him on it....for some reason you chose to criticize the latter instead of the former......perhaps "you folks" is broader than one person.....

[manu1959]

What cracks me up is how all these so-called conservatives are crying they don't have a true conservative candidate. Where the hell were these people a couple months ago? Where was the support for true conservatives like Hunter, Trancredo, and to a lesser extent Thompson?

The other thing that cracks me up about all these anti-McCain folk is how they are now redefining what it means to be a conservative. So he voted againt the Bush tax cuts for the super rich? Is the definition of a conservative someone who votes for every single tax cut every time no matter what the consequences? McCain was concerned about spending and rightfully so, look where we are now with the deficits and budgets. This makes him a liberal?

I always thought conservatism was defined by standing by your principles. Like being pro-life 100% of the time, defending the 2nd Amendment, and being strong on national security. These things McCain has always been strong on, can't say the same for Romney...yet we don't hear and see these outraged conservatives going after Romney the same way they do McCain.

all very true and well put.....there are a handfull of posters here that complain mccain is not conservative enough for them......the rest would probably vote for him if the choice was him or hillary.....

[Dilloduck]

What cracks me up is how all these so-called conservatives are crying they don't have a true conservative candidate. Where the hell were these people a couple months ago? Where was the support for true conservatives like Hunter, Trancredo, and to a lesser extent Thompson?

The other thing that cracks me up about all these anti-McCain folk is how they are now redefining what it means to be a conservative. So he voted againt the Bush tax cuts for the super rich? Is the definition of a conservative someone who votes for every single tax cut every time no matter what the consequences? McCain was concerned about spending and rightfully so, look where we are now with the deficits and budgets. This makes him a liberal?

I always thought conservatism was defined by standing by your principles. Like being pro-life 100% of the time, defending the 2nd Amendment, and being strong on national security. These things McCain has always been strong on, can't say the same for Romney...yet we don't hear and see these outraged conservatives going after Romney the same way they do McCain.

How many here had a chance to vote for ANY other candidate ?

[theHawk]

How many here had a chance to vote for ANY other candidate ?

True, but everyone had the opportunity to campaign for and contribute to each of the candidates.

[Dilloduck]

True, but everyone had the opportunity to campaign for and contribute to each of the candidates.

Well--your closing in who has a real chance to get elected. It's who you know and how much money they raise for ya. Voting for a president is like investing in the stock market except that everyone can't afford to do it and after your investment you can't sell for 4 years even IF you picked a loser.

[glockmail]

.....
The other thing that cracks me up about all these anti-McCain folk is how they are now redefining what it means to be a conservative. So he voted againt the Bush tax cuts for the super rich? Is the definition of a conservative someone who votes for every single tax cut every time no matter what the consequences? McCain was concerned about spending and rightfully so, look where we are now with the deficits and budgets. This makes him a liberal? ......

This smacks of class envy. The top earners already pay most of the taxes. Whatever happened to the concept of everyone paying the same rate?

[theHawk]

This smacks of class envy. The top earners already pay most of the taxes. Whatever happened to the concept of everyone paying the same rate?

McCain has never voted for tax increases, and has a long history of voting for tax cuts. So he had concerns cutting taxes in the upper brackets just as we getting into a war. It was a valid concern. It doesn't change him into a liberal when he has been a life long proponent of law taxes.


Did the Republican Congress vote for everyone paying the same tax rate when they were in power? Nope. They seemed just content on taxing them at a much higher rate than everyone else. Does that make ALL of them hypocritical liberals?

[glockmail]

McCain has never voted for tax increases, and has a long history of voting for tax cuts. So he had concerns cutting taxes in the upper brackets just as we getting into a war. It was a valid concern. It doesn't change him into a liberal when he has been a life long proponent of law taxes.
Reagan cut the higest bracket to 33% causing the longest economic boom in te 20th century. Clinton raised them and the economy suffered. The Bush tax cuts "on the rich" were to lower them back to the Reagan level, permanently.

Liberal is not having faith in the fact that reducing taxes stimulates the economy.

[theHawk]

Reagan cut the higest bracket to 33% causing the longest economic boom in te 20th century. Clinton raised them and the economy suffered. The Bush tax cuts "on the rich" were to lower them back to the Reagan level, permanently.

Liberal is not having faith in the fact that reducing taxes stimulates the economy.

Do you know what the current tax rates are for the highest brackets, and what they would be without Bush's tax cuts?

[manu1959]

Do you know what the current tax rates are for the highest brackets, and what they would be without Bush's tax cuts?

20 and 26 no?

[glockmail]

Do you know what the current tax rates are for the highest brackets, and what they would be without Bush's tax cuts? Currently 35%. I assume that the rate would go back to 39.6%which was what Clinton had raised it to.

[Black Lance]

This smacks of class envy. The top earners already pay most of the taxes. Whatever happened to the concept of everyone paying the same rate?

For most of us, it rolled over and died when we realized that a small percentage of the population posseses a hugely disproportionate amount of the taxable income.

[red states rule]

McCain has never voted for tax increases, and has a long history of voting for tax cuts. So he had concerns cutting taxes in the upper brackets just as we getting into a war. It was a valid concern. It doesn't change him into a liberal when he has been a life long proponent of law taxes.


Did the Republican Congress vote for everyone paying the same tax rate when they were in power? Nope. They seemed just content on taxing them at a much higher rate than everyone else. Does that make ALL of them hypocritical liberals?

He was opposed to the Bush tax cuts and said so many times. He used the liberal talking point they were tax cuts for the rich

He, like the left, ignores the fact, the top 25% pay about 85% of all Federal income taxes

[glockmail]

For most of us, it rolled over and died when we realized that a small percentage of the population posseses a hugely disproportionate amount of the taxable income. They earned it, so get over it. Besides, they being rich does not make we poor. In fact, the opposite is true.

[red states rule]

They earned it, so get over it. Besides, they being rich does not make we poor. In fact, the opposite is true.

Wealth envy is rampant. The very people who work hard, build wealth, and pay the majority of taxes that fund the liberal social programs are constantly smeared

[typomaniac]

Wealth envy is rampant. The very people who work hard, build wealth, and pay the majority of taxes that fund the liberal social programs are constantly smeared

Like George Soros? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[glockmail]

Like George Soros? :lol: :lol: :lol: I don't envy Soros because of his money. I hate him because he uses his vast wealth to undermine the US political process.

[red states rule]

I don't envy Soros because of his money. I hate him because he uses his vast wealth to undermine the US political process.

Soros is a typical liberal. America allowed him to make his money, then he does all he can to bash and undermine America

[glockmail]

Soros is a typical liberal. America allowed him to make his money, then he does all he can to bash and undermine America Actually as I recall he "earned" his money by nearly bankrupting some European country in a monetary exchange deal. He basically took billions out of government coffers that could have been used for health care and all those liberal programs that he loves so much. He certaintly did not earn his wealth by creating a net benefit to society.

[typomaniac]

Soros is a typical liberal. America allowed him to make his money, then he does all he can to bash and undermine America

Just like Kenny-boy Lay.

Even with glockspam's prompting your posts are pathetically :lame2:.

[glockmail]

Just like Kenny-boy Lay. ... Yet Soros is your hero. :pee:

[red states rule]

Yet Soros is your hero. :pee:

Anyone who hates Pres Bush and blames America for the worlds problems is a hero to the moonbats

[Black Lance]

They earned it, so get over it. Besides, they being rich does not make we poor. In fact, the opposite is true.

It's not wealth envy at all, it is simply a matter of accepting socio-economic reality. So long as the rich own a grossly disproportionate share of the income available for the government to tax, they will have to pay a disproportionate share of the tax burden. Taxing Americans without regard to their income would simply result in thousands, if not millions, of lower and working class Americans being forced to resort to welfare, which would then in turn create a need for more tax revenue. The final result of the policy you are advocating would probably be the government going deep(er) into debt to avoid triggering an economically terminal cycle of raising taxes to pay for ever increasing welfare expenses.

[Kathianne]

It's not wealth envy at all, it is simply a matter of accepting socio-economic reality. So long as the rich own a grossly disproportionate share of the income available for the government to tax, they will have to pay a disproportionate share of the tax burden. Taxing Americans without regard to their income would simply result in thousands, if not millions, of lower and working class Americans being forced to resort to welfare, which would then in turn create a need for more tax revenue. The final result of the policy you are advocating would probably be the government going deep(er) into debt to avoid triggering an economically terminal cycle of raising taxes to pay for ever increasing welfare expenses.

How much of the 'wealth' in US is owned by 'non rich', let's define the 'rich' as making more than $125k. So what percentage owns the 'wealth' of the United States?

[red states rule]

How much of the 'wealth' in US is owned by 'non rich', let's define the 'rich' as making more than $125k. So what percentage owns the 'wealth' of the United States?

snip

Top 1% Pay More Income Tax Than Bottom 90%
The Tax Foundation has published Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data:

New data released by the IRS today offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, new analysis by the Tax Foundation shows. The new data shows that the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95% of tax returns.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/10/top-1-pay-more-.html

[glockmail]

It's not wealth envy at all, it is simply a matter of accepting socio-economic reality. So long as the rich own a grossly disproportionate share of the income available for the government to tax, they will have to pay a disproportionate share of the tax burden. Taxing Americans without regard to their income would simply result in thousands, if not millions, of lower and working class Americans being forced to resort to welfare, which would then in turn create a need for more tax revenue. The final result of the policy you are advocating would probably be the government going deep(er) into debt to avoid triggering an economically terminal cycle of raising taxes to pay for ever increasing welfare expenses.

1. How can anyone "own" income? It is earned.
2. Currently someone with an income of $1,000,000 pays over $300,000 in Federal income taxes and the person earning $20,000 pays nothing. How is that fair?
3. With a flat tax scenario, someone with an income of $1,000,000 would pay 50 times the income of one earning $20,000. How is that not fair?

[red states rule]

1. How can anyone "own" income? It is earned.
2. Currently someone with an income of $1,000,000 pays over $300,000 in Federal income taxes and the person earning $20,000 pays nothing. How is that fair?
3. With a flat tax scenario, someone with an income of $1,000,000 would pay 50 times the income of one earning $20,000. How is that not fair?

It is fair Glock

Some people need to take Economics 101 and actually pay attention

[typomaniac]

All three questions have answers, but of course neither of you wants to pay attention, so there's not much point in repeating them. :pee:

[Abbey Marie]

True, but everyone had the opportunity to campaign for and contribute to each of the candidates.

Right from the first Republican debate, I sent money to the Hunter campaign, and talked him up to anyone who would listen. There is only so much a candidate can do when the press ignores him or her. He was even excluded from a debate, yet some people blamed Hunter for his being ignored. It's all pretty frustrating when, as you said, you see everyone later complaining that there are no true conservatives on the ballot.

[red states rule]

Right from the first Republican debate, I sent money to the Hunter campaign, and talked him up to anyone who would listen. There is only so much a candidate can do when the press ignores him or her. He was even excluded from a debate, yet some people blamed Hunter for his being ignored. It's all pretty frustrating when, as you said, you see everyone later complaining that there are no true conservatives on the ballot.

There are still some conservatives who think McCain can win

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120286902576264175.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries


I do not see how a RINO is going to get enough votes from conservatives to defeat a tax and spend liberal