Should Paul and Gingrich drop?

[jimnyc]

Of course they're entitled to run the entire race up till the convention, but what is more important, themselves or the party and it's nominee? I see no chance for Gingrich at this point. Paul has been dead in the water for a long time. I think it would be better if they gear up to get out of the race and nominate one of the other 2. It's becoming abundantly clear that America wants neither as our next nominee, so I think it would be best if they start thinking about the bigger picture rather than themselves.

But if not now, at what point would you want a candidate to drop out? Or is it healthy for the party to have them in till the convention?

[fj1200]

Gingrich should drop out. Paul is a non factor anyway and so he should drop out too.

[Mr. P]

I think Paul, Santorum and Romney should drop out.

[Gator Monroe]

Pronto !

[avatar4321]

They aren't going to drop out. And honestly, I dont think they should. Give the people a choice. Let the chips fall where they may.

But they arent going to drop out anyway. Paul has a message he wants out. Newt is just too proud to pull out. He says he is in it to take the nomination from Romney, Ironically, he may be giving it to him but his pride just wont let him see it. I think he really does believe he is going to win if it goes to a brokered convention.

Let's see what happens.

[Dilloduck]

Drop out for the good of zee party ? Is that communism or nazi ?

[Gator Monroe]

Drop out for the good of zee party ? Is that communism or nazi ?

You forgot ...Kluxer

[fj1200]

They aren't going to drop out. And honestly, I dont think they should. Give the people a choice. Let the chips fall where they may.

But they arent going to drop out anyway. Paul has a message he wants out. Newt is just too proud to pull out. He says he is in it to take the nomination from Romney, Ironically, he may be giving it to him but his pride just wont let him see it. I think he really does believe he is going to win if it goes to a brokered convention.

Let's see what happens.

What's the purpose of this process? To win? Newt has no chance and neither does Santorum really. Winning at a brokered convention is a dream that won't come true IMO.

[Dilloduck]

What's the purpose of this process? To win? Newt has no chance and neither does Santorum really. Winning at a brokered convention is a dream that won't come true IMO.



Better yet. What's the purpose of having a President ?

[avatar4321]

What's the purpose of this process? To win? Newt has no chance and neither does Santorum really. Winning at a brokered convention is a dream that won't come true IMO.

I dont think the convention will be brokered. But I think part of the purpose of the primary is to give the party choices.

How do we really know someone has a chance of winning unless they fight through the entire process? Take Pawlenty. I would have considered voting for him. But the man dropped out of the race before anything happened. Yeah, he didnt have alot of money or supporters, but neither did Santorum and look at him now.

We say all these things like "so and so won't win" but the future isnt determined. Things change in politics.

In 1920, we had a brokered convention. We had atleast 6 candidates in that race. Guess who ended up winning? The dark horse Warren G Harding. And guess who ended up being the VP, Calvin Coolidge. These two men, despite their flaws, presided over the only recorded period of US history where we had less than 2% unemployment. And they did so by cutting taxes and significantly cutting spending. They got the Federal government out of the way and our nation grew in unprecedented ways.

Of course, Hoover and FDR had to come along and ruin it by having the Federal Government interfer with everything.

My point is we need to see things out and stop expecting everything to be settled immediately. I think it's going to be a blessing that this race is going on so long. Our candidates are warming each other up and no matter who ends up winning, I am confident they will be better prepared for the match against Obama. Obama has a huge war chest and the longer this race goes on, the longer our guys get free publicity from the media paying attention to us and not to Obama.

Whether the convention is brokered or whether Romney ends up winning it, I think we are blessed by having all the choices we do and the people we have sharing ideas and plans.

If this race was over, the media would quickly go to ignoring our candidate and focusing on Obama and propping him up. We would need countless money to counter Obama with his money and the media in his pocket.

We need to just do what's right and let the hand of Divine providence do the rest. The Grace of God will be with us. It may not seem like it but I am confident that His hand is involved in the events of the world. We will end up with the right leader for our time. I just hope it's a leader who will be a good leader. Rather than a leader like Obama who will likely cause us more problems. But I think that will depend on whether we need to be humbled and to repent or if we already have. God gives us leaders to inspire us and increase our faith, or He gives us leaders that will try our faith and grow it that way. Either way, He will increase our faith. And either way He will have a humble people, whether by choice or by force.

Things will work out as long as we work hard and do our best. They always do.:)

[logroller]

They aren't going to drop out. And honestly, I dont think they should. Give the people a choice. Let the chips fall where they may.

But they arent going to drop out anyway. Paul has a message he wants out. Newt is just too proud to pull out. He says he is in it to take the nomination from Romney, Ironically, he may be giving it to him but his pride just wont let him see it. I think he really does believe he is going to win if it goes to a brokered convention.

Let's see what happens.

Exactly; people having more choices is always a good thing for the people. Requiring a candidate to go the distance amid challenges, no matter how slight, furthers the resolve of the candidate and preserves the integrity of the process. Its the process of being challenged that checks the candidate from becoming intrepid. Heck, I think primaries should be required for the incumbent candidate's party too; as I bet not as many dems are as entranced into the hopey-changey sentiments of 2008, and would derive a significant benefit from the opportunity to consider alternative candidates... as would open-primary states... as would all voters really, should a viable candidate gain traction.

Calling for people to not run or to pull out purely based on the sentiment of "they can't win" is derisive of the democratic election process-- until someone has 50%+1 votes, the race is on!

[fj1200]

I dont think the convention will be brokered. But I think part of the purpose of the primary is to give the party choices.

How do we really know someone has a chance of winning unless they fight through the entire process? Take Pawlenty. I would have considered voting for him. But the man dropped out of the race before anything happened. Yeah, he didnt have alot of money or supporters, but neither did Santorum and look at him now.

We say all these things like "so and so won't win" but the future isnt determined. Things change in politics.

In 1920, we had a brokered convention. We had atleast 6 candidates in that race. Guess who ended up winning? The dark horse Warren G Harding. And guess who ended up being the VP, Calvin Coolidge. These two men, despite their flaws, presided over the only recorded period of US history where we had less than 2% unemployment. And they did so by cutting taxes and significantly cutting spending. They got the Federal government out of the way and our nation grew in unprecedented ways.

The purpose of a primary is to choose between candidates, the purpose of the process is to choose the candidate for the general. Newt has zero chance and so defeats his participation of the second part. You can almost say the same about Santorum but I can see the rationale for him staying in.

1920 is a moot point because pretty much every convention was "brokered" back in the day. We're not going back to those days anytime soon.

[logroller]

The purpose of a primary is to choose between candidates, the purpose of the process is to choose the candidate for the general. Newt has zero chance and so defeats his participation of the second part. You can almost say the same about Santorum but I can see the rationale for him staying in.

1920 is a moot point because pretty much every convention was "brokered" back in the day. We're not going back to those days anytime soon.
does he actually have zero chance, or just a slim one?

[fj1200]

Yes, zero. :coffee:

[logroller]

Yes, zero. :coffee:
Like delegate-wise; there's zero possibility? California should of moved its primary up; I got hosed! :poop:

[jimnyc]

Calling for people to not run or to pull out purely based on the sentiment of "they can't win" is derisive of the democratic election process-- until someone has 50%+1 votes, the race is on!

Not as much derisive as it is common sense. All 4 candidates claim to want Obama out of office and that we need new leadership in Washington. So it's either Obama, or one of the 4 candidates on the primary trail. As an individual, of course you want to win and be that guy in Washington. Staying in until the end and extending the fighting within the party could in fact harm the eventual winners chances of beating Obama. Sometimes you have to do what is necessary for the party instead of your individual interests. Either that, or don't be a part of that party.

In theory, I agree with your sentiment. But you wouldn't bet $1 on Paul or Gingrich at this point and neither would anyone else. At some point, it's better for them to use their resources and whatever power they have and line up behind a single candidate and use the combined energy to get Obama out and the GOP winner in.

[fj1200]

Like delegate-wise; there's zero possibility? California should of moved its primary up; I got hosed! :poop:

Don't make me come out there. :slap:

[Wind Song]

Gingrich and Santorum should both drop out. Paul should stay in and run as a third party candidate.

[logroller]

Not as much derisive as it is common sense. All 4 candidates claim to want Obama out of office and that we need new leadership in Washington. So it's either Obama, or one of the 4 candidates on the primary trail. As an individual, of course you want to win and be that guy in Washington. Staying in until the end and extending the fighting within the party could in fact harm the eventual winners chances of beating Obama. Sometimes you have to do what is necessary for the party instead of your individual interests. Either that, or don't be a part of that party.

In theory, I agree with your sentiment. But you wouldn't bet $1 on Paul or Gingrich at this point and neither would anyone else. At some point, it's better for them to use their resources and whatever power they have and line up behind a single candidate and use the combined energy to get Obama out and the GOP winner in.
or...maybe let the voters decide...thought that's what the democratic process was predicated upon-- and that in a representative democracy, we, the people select those who represent us, not them selecting each other-- that'd be elitism. Now maybe you're right, that defeating Obama is what's most important; but pandering to the political machine is what put Obama in office; seems to me we're fighting fire with fire, and its only the people who will end up getting burned.

Maybe my sentiments are Utopian, but refusing to yield on the pragmatic terms set forth in our election process is no more Utopian than the sentimentality of the Preamble-- We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union... i'm sure they knew the word better, but they chose more perfect. Any guess as to why? Perhaps to inspire Us to greatness, rather than risk aversion. I want a leader, not merely a front-runner.

[jimnyc]

Gingrich and Santorum should both drop out. Paul should stay in and run as a third party candidate.

Santorum, who is 2nd in delagate count, should drop out. And the guy who garners about 10% of the vote thus far should stay in? What point would that serve? Do you really think he'll get any more votes as an independent? All he'll accomplish if he ever did such a thing would be to take votes away from whoever opposes Obama in November. We've been hearing the same garbage about Nader since the early 70's. And Nader has tried various "parties". Changing your affiliation won't magically make votes appear.

[jimnyc]

or...maybe let the voters decide...thought that's what the democratic process was predicated upon-- and that in a representative democracy, we, the people select those who represent us, not them selecting each other-- that'd be elitism. Now maybe you're right, that defeating Obama is what's most important; but pandering to the political machine is what put Obama in office; seems to me we're fighting fire with fire, and its only the people who will end up getting burned.

Maybe my sentiments are Utopian, but refusing to yield on the pragmatic terms set forth in our election process is no more Utopian than the sentimentality of the Preamble-- We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union... i'm sure they knew the word better, but they chose more perfect. Any guess as to why? Perhaps to inspire Us to greatness, rather than risk aversion. I want a leader, not merely a front-runner.

And yet neither has a chance in hell, and I'm willing to bet on that. And just like in 2000, the only thing that can be accomplished by staying the course is taking votes away from another. All your stuff sounds nice and all, but will you be content with that when Obama gets re-elected? I'd rather the party work for a common goal than oppose one another till the very end and give Obama that much of a lead.

But I can deal with what you stated earlier, once the numbers show that they cannot win, that's when they should drop. That will be very soon for Paul and not much further for Gingrich. Unless they want to disrupt the election, there's really little point in continuing once they are mathematically out of the contest.

[Trigg]

Gingrich and Santorum should both drop out. Paul should stay in and run as a third party candidate.

spoken like a true liberal.

The only thing that would do is pull votes away from Romney and bambam wins by default.

[Trigg]

I like Romney, always have, he has a head for business and IMHO can pull us out of this recession.

I like Santorum and think he would do great as a VP. Neither he nor Newt have the delegates to beat Romney, they need to pack it in and get on with defeating bambam.

I truely believe that if Either Romney or Huckabee had dropped out earlier in the last go around McCain woudn't have been able to pull the delegates and get the GOP nod that lead to bambam's ultimate win. Liked both of them, loved Huckabee, but they were their own worst enemies and should have teamed up againt McCain. If they had I don't think we'd be in the mess we are now.

[Wind Song]

spoken like a true liberal.

The only thing that would do is pull votes away from Romney and bambam wins by default.

I like Ron Paul.

[jimnyc]

I like Ron Paul.

That's not a reason for him to drop and re-enter as an independent. Just because you like him, that won't make the rest of America feel the same and all of a sudden start votong for him. He's consistently garnered anywhere from 5-12% of the vote. He has no chance at all, NONE, whether he runs as republican, democrat, independent, libertarian, green... just doesn't matter.

[Wind Song]

That's not a reason for him to drop and re-enter as an independent. Just because you like him, that won't make the rest of America feel the same and all of a sudden start votong for him. He's consistently garnered anywhere from 5-12% of the vote. He has no chance at all, NONE, whether he runs as republican, democrat, independent, libertarian, green... just doesn't matter.
Neither Santorum nor Gingrich have a chance. I'm sick of the two party system.

[jimnyc]

Neither Santorum nor Gingrich have a chance. I'm sick of the two party system.

Gingrich will be eliminated before long. Santorum still has the ability to turn the nomination around, but I wouldn't bet on it. Eventually "the party" needs to band together to go after Obama, and it'll get harder the closer we get to the conventions, IMO.

But you can't expect someone doing extremely horrible, to change tickets midway through the race and expect something miraculous, especially the likes of RP.

With all of that said, many people agree with you and would love to see the 2 party system end. I wouldn't lose any sleep if an independent crashed the party and won, but it won't be easy, and it won't be this year.

[Wind Song]

Gingrich will be eliminated before long. Santorum still has the ability to turn the nomination around, but I wouldn't bet on it. Eventually "the party" needs to band together to go after Obama, and it'll get harder the closer we get to the conventions, IMO.

But you can't expect someone doing extremely horrible, to change tickets midway through the race and expect something miraculous, especially the likes of RP.

With all of that said, many people agree with you and would love to see the 2 party system end. I wouldn't lose any sleep if an independent crashed the party and won, but it won't be easy, and it won't be this year.

Unfortunately, what we're stuck with is the rich man's candidate, whatever party. Just packaged differently.

[jimnyc]

Unfortunately, what we're stuck with is the rich man's candidate, whatever party. Just packaged differently.

People had the ability from the very first day to go with Ron Paul, they CHOSE to go with Romney up till this point, at least the overwhelming majority. Rich people can campaign harder, and maybe have more advertisements, but they don't control your vote. With millions and millions and millions spent - and probably a fraction of that spent by RP - I know a few on this very board likely still voted for RP in the primaries.

Money can't buy everything, it can't buy votes, unless there is a (D) next to the candidates name.

[Wind Song]

People had the ability from the very first day to go with Ron Paul, they CHOSE to go with Romney up till this point, at least the overwhelming majority. Rich people can campaign harder, and maybe have more advertisements, but they don't control your vote. With millions and millions and millions spent - and probably a fraction of that spent by RP - I know a few on this very board likely still voted for RP in the primaries.

Money can't buy everything, it can't buy votes, unless there is a (D) next to the candidates name.

Money can buy votes. You may be more of an idealist than I am.

I was very into President Obama's campaign last time. He totally disappointed me pandering to big business.

[logroller]

And yet neither has a chance in hell, and I'm willing to bet on that. And just like in 2000, the only thing that can be accomplished by staying the course is taking votes away from another. All your stuff sounds nice and all, but will you be content with that when Obama gets re-elected? I'd rather the party work for a common goal than oppose one another till the very end and give Obama that much of a lead.

But I can deal with what you stated earlier, once the numbers show that they cannot win, that's when they should drop. That will be very soon for Paul and not much further for Gingrich. Unless they want to disrupt the election, there's really little point in continuing once they are mathematically out of the contest.
I'm contented by knowing every vote was cast for the person they most want leading the country-- if the will of the People say it's Obama, then so be it. We're contractually obligated to accept the will of the People; the officials are supposed to be contracted to us, not each other or their party, campaign supporters or lobbyists...but the People.

[Wind Song]

I'm contented by knowing every vote was cast for the person they most want leading the country-- if the will of the People say it's Obama, then so be it. We're contractually obligated to accept the will of the People; the officials are supposed to be contracted to us, not each other or their party, campaign supporters or lobbyists...but the People.

That's very idealistic.

[jimnyc]

I'm contented by knowing every vote was cast for the person they most want leading the country-- if the will of the People say it's Obama, then so be it. We're contractually obligated to accept the will of the People; the officials are supposed to be contracted to us, not each other or their party, campaign supporters or lobbyists...but the People.

Agreed, but we should still apply common sense and the larger picture. You can also write in a candidate that's not even running in the general election. Personally, I'm going to follow my party closely and see if they can get Obama out of office.

Lets say I give a 10 rating to my candidate. I give a 2 to Obama. I give a 7 to the other guy running. If my candidate essentially has no chance of winning, I'd rather use my vote on #7 who has a lot of what I want, but less than I prefer, but still much more than Obama.

Sure, you can stick with the "rights", and constitutional American patriotic stuff, but no offense, I'm going to stick with #7 and hope we get the idiot out of office. I'm not going to vote for my perfect 10, just so I could do things the way our forefathers wanted us to and apply the system in a perfect manner. Sorry, this is 2012, and I'm ultimately going with the guy who holds as many ideals/beliefs I do AND is capable of getting Obama out of office.

[jimnyc]

That's very idealistic.

And unrealistic towards accomplishing anything other than remaining idealistic.

[Trigg]

Money can buy votes. You may be more of an idealist than I am.

I was very into President Obama's campaign last time. He totally disappointed me pandering to big business.

From Obama to Ron Paul is a HUGE leap. I can't even get my mind around the drastic change it would take in a person to go from one of those extremes to the other.

[Dilloduck]

I think you would be shocked how easy it would be. They all have parameters that they must work within and I bet we don't know half of them.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm contented by knowing every vote was cast for the person they most want leading the country-- if the will of the People say it's Obama, then so be it. We're contractually obligated to accept the will of the People; the officials are supposed to be contracted to us, not each other or their party, campaign supporters or lobbyists...but the People.

as you know, however, the will of the people has its limitations on what they are allowed to have their reps make as laws and social policy. Unfortunately today, so much that should be considered out of the realm of the feds to "make us do something", is accepted by too many people. They dont see the long term consequences, such as judicial activism, which has now extend imminent domain to include reasons that are simply monetary, as an example.

[logroller]

Agreed, but we should still apply common sense and the larger picture. You can also write in a candidate that's not even running in the general election. Personally, I'm going to follow my party closely and see if they can get Obama out of office.

Lets say I give a 10 rating to my candidate. I give a 2 to Obama. I give a 7 to the other guy running. If my candidate essentially has no chance of winning, I'd rather use my vote on #7 who has a lot of what I want, but less than I prefer, but still much more than Obama.

Sure, you can stick with the "rights", and constitutional American patriotic stuff, but no offense, I'm going to stick with #7 and hope we get the idiot out of office. I'm not going to vote for my perfect 10, just so I could do things the way our forefathers wanted us to and apply the system in a perfect manner. Sorry, this is 2012, and I'm ultimately going with the guy who holds as many ideals/beliefs I do AND is capable of getting Obama out of office.
Are you talking about the general election or the primary? If you're critique is over third-party candidates, that's a different situation from what the OP premised.

I can stick to the patriotic american thing:laugh: Well sure, I can; just like you don't have to-- we have a choice. You can take the hard line, Obama out! Of course, that doesn't mean you'll get a better leader, just a less bad one; but again, that's a choice. I'm just saying the government doesn't have the choice, that the government must stick with the "rights" and the 'constitutional American patriotic stuff-- and that the POTUS we elect should should not only be aware of that, but demonstrate it-- or I won't vote for them, regardless of who else might win.

[jimnyc]

Are you talking about the general election or the primary? If you're critique is over third-party candidates, that's a different situation from what the OP premised.

I can stick to the patriotic american thing:laugh: Well sure, I can; just like you don't have to-- we have a choice. You can take the hard line, Obama out! Of course, that doesn't mean you'll get a better leader, just a less bad one; but again, that's a choice. I'm just saying the government doesn't have the choice, that the government must stick with the "rights" and the 'constitutional American patriotic stuff-- and that the POTUS we elect should should not only be aware of that, but demonstrate it-- or I won't vote for them, regardless of who else might win.

Either election, doesn't matter. My point is, it makes little to no sense to vote for a RP or Gingrich at this point when Romney is slowly running away with the contest and Santorum is barely hanging in there. I'm thinking that it would be best for the party to band together and work towards a common goal at this point, which is winning the general election and getting Obama out of office. Sure, everyone is free to vote for Paul/Gingrich, and I don't mean to imply otherwise, or demand they drop out, but any logical and reasonable person knows that getting behind either of the 2 at this point, or Paul to begin with at all, is simply not helping the greater picture. If voting for your candidate, even if he is out of the race already, and it extends the (R) battle closer to the convention, go for it. But it could possibly help keep Obama in office and change a potential 7 into a 2.