Romney wins New Hampshire, Paul spokesman calls for others to drop out

I wasn’t surprised with Romney’s win in New Hampshire. I was surprised by the support for Ron Paul. He had a great night securing second place.

?I called Gov. Romney a short while ago. ? He certainly had a clear-cut victory, but we?re nibbling at his heels,? Paul told hundreds of cheering supporters in a crowded banquet hall. ?He had a victory, but we have had a victory for the cause of liberty tonight.?

National campaign chairman Jesse Benton called on Paul?s conservative opponents to drop out of the race and get behind Paul as the conservative Romney-alternative.

?It?s been our goal to consolidate this into a two-man race, and we?re there now,? he said.

So let’s just follow the media line that 75% of the vote is anti Romney; would they be anti Romney enough to vote for Ron Paul?

What would you say if a two man race was Mitt Romney vs Ron Paul? Are Romney’s past positions on social issues and health care more palatable than a Ron Paul foreign policy?

37 Replies to “Romney wins New Hampshire, Paul spokesman calls for others to drop out”

  1. grudznick

    Unfortunately, that’s like asking are you pro-Sibby, or are you anti-Ellis.

    These issues, and others, are solved over eggs, toast, and gravy-taters tomorrow morning at Tally’s. Please join us.

    1. Anonymous

      Do you think Ron Paul is running up the score in hopes that we end up with a Romney/Rand Paul ticket?

      Maybe Paul wants his son on the ticket?

  2. delegate

    My money would go to Ron Paul. Not that I’m anti Romney or pro Paul I’d just enjoy sticking it to the establishment.

    No more farm subsidies, ethanol, paid abortions, subsidize crop insurance, blender pumps, oil subsidies, medicare would be fixed so would SS.

    I’d hope he’d have to compromise some on foriegn policy but Bush’s policies haven’t been awesome either.

    1. Les

      Would that be to get rid of the handful of billions at home but keep on sending the handful of trillions off shore Delegat? I do respect you for the public Paul.

  3. grudznick

    I want to know where Mr. PP stands on this issue. PP gave take. Once every other day or so Bill Clay reports the news that I see on CNN. I want to see take that challenges an old man’s thinking. Let Mr. Sibby post here again because at least he has take.

        1. grudznick

          No. That is not what giving your take is.

          And don’t be silly. The potatos go on a plate and the gravy goes on the potatos. The bowl is for your oatmeal porridge.

    1. Anonymous

      About two weeks ago heard one political analyst state that 45% of Ron Paul’s supporters in Iowa were Republicans. The rest were Ind and Dem. You had to be a Rep to participate in the caucus, BUT . . . you could register as a Rep the night of the caucuses.

      Also the analyst said that RP’s support in NH was 55% Rep and 45% Ind and Dems. Will be indtersting to see how he does in strictly Republican primaries.

      I think there is way to much importance on these two mixed events.

  4. veldy

    So far we’ve seen results from a caucus state and from an open primary state, with another open primary state on deck. Methinks this process just might go on a bit longer than the conventional wisdom may assume.

  5. Troy Jones

    I would like to have Perry, Santorum, Paul and Huntsman to stay in at least to Super Tuesday and then drop it down to a two or three person race. I like primaries. Think they are good for the body politic.

    1. mhs

      On a larger note, the parties going to have to get together and change this primary process. Less than 250,000 votes have been cast and the thing is essentially over. Pure lunacy. At one time, it may have made some sense to have two very small primaries that a dark horse candidate with little money and great ideas could compete in. I fear the Super Pacs ended that era forever in Iowa last week. I like the idea of combining primaries in to 3 or 4 superblocks with maybe IA, NH, SC and a couple more first up to give at least a bit of chance to the formative candidates. I hate to see it go, but, the era of retail campaigns probably got killed forever this cycle.

      1. troy jones


        We could fix the Super Pac problem in a minute: Unlimited donations, full disclosure of who they are.

        Personally, I like the idea of small states setting the stage. Requires retail politics. In the end, I’m willing to give consideration to people who win states where alot of people met the candidates face-to-face. Lessens the impact of media.

        BTW, I don’t think Super Pacs did Newt in. His baggage did and his inability to stay on track with what gave him his surge.

        Iowa raised my perception of Santorum. Alot of people who met him liked him.

        Same with Huntsman in New Hampshire.

        Newt’s middling performance despite name ID and money raised questions.

        Perry/Bachmann’s thrashing also told me alot (not ready for prime time).

        I’m actually also impressed with Romney’s NH showing where he actually beat pre-election polls. They know him best and stuck with him despite the attacks.

        Paul’s steady numbers in both states also tells us something about 20% of the GOP electorate.

        Personally, I think the calendar is nearly perfect. If I made a change, I’d maybe put a small Western state in the mix before Super Tuesday (Montana/Nevada/NM). Florida is a perfect “close” to the early primaries because it is such a swing state. Maybe I’d add Ohio/Indiana too before Super Tuesday. Finally, I’d back up Super Tuesday a few weeks just to allow what occurred earlier to get vetted.

  6. springer

    I don’t understand the open primary thing anyway. It was said on the news that many voting for Huntsman were happy with Obama – huh??? Were Dems voting for Huntsman just to boost his numbers? It seems that these open primaries are ripe for mischief as far as what they truly mean. And were Dems voting for Paul as well? Apparently that happened in the IA caucuses. I prefer a primary that has only the registered members of that party voting for the candidate. At least if people are going to try to rig the outcome, they have to make the effort to change their registration.

    One thing I did notice with the speeches last night was that if the Reps win, Mr. Tele Prompter will have to retire! These candidates are all capable of speaking coherently on their own.

    1. rob_dibble

      Romney was using a teleprompter.

      Mitt Romney, like many Republicans, has mocked President Obama’s use of a teleprompter, suggesting it speaks to the overall ineptitude of the commander-in-chief.

      But there he was at his victory speech Tuesday — possibly one of the biggest speeches of his life — reading from a pair of teleprompters.

      The two clear screens were hard to miss in front of the stage. They stood tall, well above the heads of the crowd that gathered on the floor of the Southern New Hampshire University dining hall to listen to the former governor’s speech, which ended up being very well received.

  7. troy jones


    I understand the rationale but disagree with it.

    The rationale for independents voting in primaries hinges on this point: The political system is effectively a two party system and the final nominee will come from one party or the other and this gives them input on their choice.

    The rationale for Democrats being able to vote in the GOP (or visa versa) primary hinges two principals:

    1) Elections have a “cult” (as in driven by the personality of candidates) component and members of the opposite party can be enamored with the personna of a candidate.

    2) Times and issues driving the agenda can sometimes cause people to desire to cross-over. On the national scene for instance war or foreign intervention can be transcendent of party. On a state scene, a taxation issue could be transcendent.

    What all these arguments discount is parties are essentially distinct ideologies and party registration is the determination one generally aligns with one or the other. Closed primaries accentuate these distinctions.

    1. springer

      Independents and Dems can now vote in Rep primaries, and vice versa. They simply have to change registration before the election and then change back afterwards if they want to. We have done it in time past. I still believe completely open primaries invite mischief.

      1. veldy

        I know that(party switching) happens, but I could never bring myself to do it. I’d be so afraid something would happen and I’d die before I could get to the courthouse to change it back.

          1. Anonymous

            I know many people who were part of Rush Limbaugh’s opperation chaos in 2008.

            More R’s switched to D in order to vote for Clinton than I had expected.

            Operation Chaos was a great idea.

  8. Join the Hunt!

    Why choose between a candidate with a spotty past on social issues and health care (flip-flop) and a candidate with a nutty foreign policy who is largely un-electable? We have a candidate that has been consistently conservative – fiscally and socially – and has a load of foreign policy experience. This candidate has plans to overhaul and simplify the tax code, create jobs, eliminate ‘to big to fail’, and restore trust in the government and its process. Jon Huntsman should be the clear choice. He’s electable and his policies are just what this country needs. The worst thing about the guy is that he served as ambassador under Obama. So what? He served under both Bush administrations and Reagan. He was the best man for that job. He served his country. One could definitely make the arguement that Romney’s and Paul’s past records are far worse than Huntsman’s – a man who has been a consistent statesman and servant to his country.

      1. insomniac

        I was almost ready to get on the Huntsman bandwagon but lost the excitement when he received less than 20% of the vote.

        I was open to Huntsman.

        My list:

        Paul (I could be swayed to vote Paul over Romney)

        My preference is that people are articulate but in Santorum’s case I just don’t care for him. He’s a self rightious nut.

  9. Bill Fleming

    That’s too sneaky for my taste, springer. I’d be hard pressed to convince anyone I was really a Republican… except maybe those guys who put out that goofy litmus test that showed most Dems in the SD legislature are more R than some of the real R’s are.

    Better to just let the people vote, don’t you think? Otherwise, you could end up nominating people who don’t have a prayer of winning in the general. As I’ve said before (but it bears repeating), the purpose of a political party is to win elections. If you want a religion, join a church.

  10. Joel Rosenthal

    Paul is a Libertarian. He holds very different values than the majority of Republicans.

    He is against American being the Leader of the Free World. He is for recreational drugs, and is basically Pro Choice. To top this off he doesn’t see a nuclear Iran as a U S problem.

    You may or may not like Romney (Senator Thune’s choice) but Paul is the one who should drop out. Of course if he runs as an Independent or Libertarian, Obama probably will get four more years.

    1. Anonymous

      I miss the days when Rosenthal was chairman. Joel please take some time to teach Timothy Rave something about winning at politics.

    2. Job Creator

      Joel, I am not sure you get RP.

      He is not against America being the leader of the free world. He is against pouring trillions of dollars of treasure and thousands of American lives to manipulate politics and business in some countries and to defend those who can afford to defend themselves. Only he calls our behaviors ?unconstitutional?, which they probably are. In reality our foreign policy has been erratic and foolish at best over the decades.

      RP has a clear vision on the recreational drug issue. The greatest failure in US policy in the last forty years has been the ?war on drugs.? It simply hasn?t worked and has cost billions of dollars for literally nothing ? except institutionalizing tens of thousands of otherwise-productive Americans.

      Of course RP is pro-choice. That?s a constitutional issue, not a religious zealot issue.

      An Iran that owns a nuclear weapon is not a US problem. Unless they are capable of developing an ICBM that can deliver it to our shores.

      Look, RP has absolutely no chance of becoming President because most Americans don?t have the guts or cahones to act like Real Citizens under Libertarian principles.

      Once the Obama campaign and their superpacs get done with Romney he doesn?t have a chance either. Get prepared for another Obama term. Simple as that.

        1. Job Creator

          Good point on the poverty issue. Doesn’t have much to do with the thread, though. Joel wasn’t wringing his hands over poverty.

          I would like to see Iran try to sneak an ICBM with a nuclear warhead to Venezuala (even in the smallest parts possible). I think it would “mysteriously” not arrive at its destination… Or maybe there would be an “accident” at the assembly point.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.