So singling out one state which he may or may not do well in, doesn't really mean much.
Yeah, there's no difference at all for Romney between Michigan and, say, North Dakota. Not in either a primary election sense nor a general election sense, right? They're just "one state".
You're the one who singled out a state Joph. I'll note that you didn't say that Romney couldn't get the Republicans of New Hampshire, or Florida, or Nevada, or Maine to vote for him. Why is that? ****. Why mention Michigan at all? I'm still not sure what you thought this meant. So a candidate in a primary wont always win every state. Is that it? Because if that is, then can't we just chuck that on the pile of "true, but meaningless facts" and move on?
At this stage? Or at this time?
Honestly, trying to compare the 2008 Democratic cycle to this one is pointless on multiple levels.
Exactly, sure. But all I was doing was showing that the winner of the last Dem primary *also* was unable to get people of his own party to vote for him in a number of states.
In case you're confused, the point was to show how meaningless your earlier statement was. Do you understand this yet? Or do I need to go on?
You're kidding right? Florida and Michigan had the same issues with the national GOP. The only difference was that the GOP only forfeited half their delegations and the Democratic part chose to forfeit all of them.
That and the GOP came up with a sensible adult decision right off the bat, while the Dems bickered over it like children, and played games after the fact with the delegate count. The GOP went into those states knowing that the penalty for the early primaries were the half vote thing. No one complained. No one made a huge deal out of it. They accepted the reality, adjusted to it, and moved on.
The Dems were a cluster@#%^ though. First they stripped all the delegates. Then some folks campaigned anyway. Some withdrew. Some didn't. It was screwed up top to bottom. Then they had to decide how to seat them and how many after the fact, which of course led to more wrangling and fighting within the party.
You're pretty dramatically downplaying the vast differences between how the two parties handled the states shifting their primary dates forward Joph. It was certainly not the Dems brightest hour at all.
In both case though, it's nothing remotely comparing the the ridiculously poor job the GOP has done actually running the elections in multiple states this year.
And I'm sure that's the message you've been told this week. Next week it'll be something else. Like rumors Romney has cancer or something. I'm sure you'll lap that up (whatever it is) just as readily.
It's like you're just repeating some rhetoric you heard somewhere and not engaging your own brain.
I like how anything you're uncomfortable hearing is "rhetoric".
Nope. Anything that's so obviously media manipulated messaging is though. You honestly don't stop and think about how your media sources all manage to decide to write the same thing at the same time, then magically shift to the exact same opinions on something else next week, and the week after that, etc? It never occurs to you that there just might be some coordination going on there?
Last week it was Santorum surging. The week before that it was about Bain Capital. This week it's GOP election mishandling. What do you suppose it'll be next week? Don't worry. The guys on TV will be sure to tell you what you're supposed to repeat when it's time for you to know. Edited, Feb 14th 2012 7:06pm by gbaji