dagblog - Comments for "&quot;Meh&quot; Is for Mitt" http://dagblog.com/politics/meh-mitt-12732 Comments for ""Meh" Is for Mitt" en As noted in my comment on http://dagblog.com/comment/146352#comment-146352 <a id="comment-146352"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/politics/meh-mitt-12732">&quot;Meh&quot; Is for Mitt</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>As noted in my comment on 'Mitt Wins' post site,</p> <p><strong><em>What I'm getting out of both Iowa and NH is that if there was one 'decent' conservative running instead of the few (mostly whackos) that are his opponents, 'Myth' Romney would have been 'fired'. The others have had the majority of total votes. (It's been noted that Huntsman also being Mormon hasn't helped him.)</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>The truth is that 'Myth' and his cohorts (shudder to think who they really are) simply have the $$$$$$$$$$$$ to buy this primary</em>.</strong></p> <p>I strongly believe, as stated above (and the returns support this) that he couldn't prevail against one strong conservative.  And without all the funding from PACs et al., I don't believe he could have garnered anywhere close to the final tallies.</p> <p>The conservative Repubs, and 'tea party' constituency are proving they are either too fractured and/or without the political acumen needed to achieve their goals - much less survive or continue to be anointed as the grand wizards within their party.  </p> <p> </p> </div></div></div> Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:19:15 +0000 Aunt Sam comment 146352 at http://dagblog.com I still think Mitt is the http://dagblog.com/comment/146351#comment-146351 <a id="comment-146351"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/politics/meh-mitt-12732">&quot;Meh&quot; Is for Mitt</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>I still think Mitt is the plutocrat's safety candidate in case Iran or Europe or something blows up the economy and takes down Obama.</p> </div></div></div> Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:01:19 +0000 Donal comment 146351 at http://dagblog.com Doc, this is good, really http://dagblog.com/comment/146349#comment-146349 <a id="comment-146349"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/politics/meh-mitt-12732">&quot;Meh&quot; Is for Mitt</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Doc, this is good, really good. I intend to reread it once we are home from Harbor View.  </p> </div></div></div> Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:39:55 +0000 tmccarthy0 comment 146349 at http://dagblog.com One other point that I think http://dagblog.com/comment/146347#comment-146347 <a id="comment-146347"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/politics/meh-mitt-12732">&quot;Meh&quot; Is for Mitt</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>One other point that I think is significant is that in 2008, Romney received 31% of the vote.  After four years he was only to push that up to 38%.  In other words, he doesn't seem to be gaining any significant new support.  The same kind of thing happened in Iowa, where in 2008 he received 25% of the vote, in 2012 25%.  One would think at least in NH he could have surged by at least 10% over what he did in 2008.</p> <p>"Meh" indeed</p> </div></div></div> Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:30:29 +0000 Elusive Trope comment 146347 at http://dagblog.com