• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is the Republican Nomination over?

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Is the Republican Nomination over?

True - Romney does not yet have the majority of delegates needed - but it appears that with the win in Ill - he pretty much has it sewn up.

thoughts?
 

saturneptune

New Member
Is the Republican Nomination over?

True - Romney does not yet have the majority of delegates needed - but it appears that with the win in Ill - he pretty much has it sewn up.

thoughts?

Yes it is, and I only came to that conclusion after the results came in tonight. I have two thoughts. One is that this guarantees the reelection of Obama, and two, I would not vote for Romney for toilet cleaner at Walmart.
 

Don

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Actually, your two things are slightly incorrect: Your not voting for Romney will guarantee Obama's election.

There are four ways to vote at this time: for Obama; against Obama (meaning, the candidate with the highest likelihood of beating him -- which, at this point, is Romney); voting in such a way that Obama will win (i.e., voting for a candidate that doesn't have a chance of actually winning); OR, not voting at all (which in effect means you voted for the winner, since you didn't use your voting power to keep that individual out of office, or get that individual in office).

Of the first 3, 2 mean Obama will win.

My recommendation to all: Vote your conscience. Decide for yourself if your conscience will allow you to sleep by knowing that you helped Obama get re-elected, and thus subjecting you, your family, and your friends to 4 more years.


While it looks like I'm trying to make a case for voting against Obama, I personally haven't decided which way I'm going to vote.
 

saturneptune

New Member
Actually, your two things are slightly incorrect: Your not voting for Romney will guarantee Obama's election.

There are four ways to vote at this time: for Obama; against Obama (meaning, the candidate with the highest likelihood of beating him -- which, at this point, is Romney); voting in such a way that Obama will win (i.e., voting for a candidate that doesn't have a chance of actually winning); OR, not voting at all (which in effect means you voted for the winner, since you didn't use your voting power to keep that individual out of office, or get that individual in office).

Of the first 3, 2 mean Obama will win.

My recommendation to all: Vote your conscience. Decide for yourself if your conscience will allow you to sleep by knowing that you helped Obama get re-elected, and thus subjecting you, your family, and your friends to 4 more years.


While it looks like I'm trying to make a case for voting against Obama, I personally haven't decided which way I'm going to vote.
That is an excellent post. Conscience to me trumps the Republican Party. I have noticed the deterioration of the Republican nominee since Reagan left office. I voted for Bush, Dole, and finally McCain. I decided McCain was the last straw on the road to liberalism for me. The Republicans did not continue the slow march towards being Democrats this time, they took a giant leap.

I understand your theories about voting. Voting for Obama is not an option with me. McCain was my last vote in the mindset of voting against someone, in this case, Obama. That is how far down the road we have come. For example, in the 1980 election, we had two candidates who at least had moral bearing, although one could not govern effectively. Today, we have two that totally lack any similance of moral bearing.

I saw a show during the 2008 election, about a what if situation. If John Kennedy had run against John McCain, Kennedy would have been the more conservative candidate and to the right of John McCain for various reasons. As much as I disliked Johnson, he at least acted like he had some sense of direction. And, his opponent presented a well defined difference in the person of Goldwater. Think about Truman Dewey, Eisenhower Stevenson, Kennedy Nixon, Johnson Goldwater, Nixon Humphrey, Nixon McGovern, Carter Ford, Reagan Carter and Reagan Mondale. There is at least one good choice, in some cases two. Now, look at the following, as the pattern progresses from one good choice to none. Bush Dukakis, Bush Clinton, Dole Clinton, Bush Gore, Bush Kerry, Obama McCain, and the ultimate, Obama Romney. The distinction is stark. I drew the line at McCain. If the Republcians would ever just change course gradually, I would probably rejoin the party, because I do not like being in this position, a no win situation.

The bottom line for me is no vote for Romney.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here's my take on the election.

The U.S. is in dire need. To use a metaphor, the country is like a patient in the Emergency Room. The patient is bleeding and is in deep trouble. Surgery needs to be performed. There are two doctors on call, one is a general practitioner named Obama with no surgical experience. The other is a first year surgeon named Romney. The totally competent surgeon is named <insert your favorite candidate's name> and is off duty, in fact is on sabbatical.

Who are you going to select to perform surgery on the patient? At least to keep the patient alive until more help can be administered?
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Is the Republican Nomination over?

True - Romney does not yet have the majority of delegates needed - but it appears that with the win in Ill - he pretty much has it sewn up.

thoughts?

It's not quite over yet, but it's close. Santorum should win Louisiana on Saturday. If Gingrich drops out, there is a small chance that Santorum could capture the nomination. If Gingrich stays in he will rob votes from Santorum in upcoming primaries. Gingrich has to drop out before the April 3rd primaries in Maryland, Wisconsin, and DC.
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
Here's my take on the election.

The U.S. is in dire need. To use a metaphor, the country is like a patient in the Emergency Room. The patient is bleeding and is in deep trouble. Surgery needs to be performed. There are two doctors on call, one is a general practitioner named Obama with no surgical experience. The other is a first year surgeon named Romney. The totally competent surgeon is named <insert your favorite candidate's name> and is off duty, in fact is on sabbatical.

Who are you going to select to perform surgery on the patient? At least to keep the patient alive until more help can be administered?
That's the way I see it as well. Those who refuse to vote for the opponent of Obama are essentially voting for Obama whether they want to admit it or not. It's great voting for the person you want in there, but in all honesty none of the GOP candidates get my vote on this principle alone. What do I do then? Those so opposed to the "lesser of two evils" approach are doing the exact same thing if they vote for Santorum or Paul, as neither is a true conservative.

If driving down the road and your car begins to swerve where you will either hit a child or the child's mother, staying on the road is not an option. Neither is thinking the "conscience vote" is really a true option in this upcoming election.
 

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
I completely reject that. If you are able to think in 20-year blocks, you would realize a Romney presidency, with republican majorities in both houses, will be disasterous.

2012 Romney wins POTUS.
2014 Demoncrats take back majorities in both houses
2016 A president even more radical than team zero will be firmly in charge, with majorities in both houses.

I will vote for a conservative. If there is none on the ballot, I will write one in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

preachinjesus

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It's amazing the lengths some go to justify having to vote for a terrible candidate because one is devoted to a failed two-party approach.
 

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
It's amazing the lengths some go to justify having to vote for a terrible candidate because one is devoted to a failed two-party approach.

I guess we don't normally agree, but we do, here. A vote for a liberal is a vote to ignore the good will the American people have given Republcans.
 

Bobby Hamilton

New Member
Here's my take on the election.

The U.S. is in dire need. To use a metaphor, the country is like a patient in the Emergency Room. The patient is bleeding and is in deep trouble. Surgery needs to be performed. There are two doctors on call, one is a general practitioner named Obama with no surgical experience. The other is a first year surgeon named Romney. The totally competent surgeon is named <insert your favorite candidate's name> and is off duty, in fact is on sabbatical.

Who are you going to select to perform surgery on the patient? At least to keep the patient alive until more help can be administered?

I get what you're going for here, but I'd honestly say you don't have it broken down right.

Obama has surgical experience, and a land of malpractice suits against him. Then you can continue on :)
 

Bobby Hamilton

New Member
It's amazing the lengths some go to justify having to vote for a terrible candidate because one is devoted to a failed two-party approach.

If you believe what we have now is a two-party approach, then I don't know what to say.

I don't believe the United State has been a two party system in years. I firmly think it's more tradition now than anything. You've got a few issues that represent one side or the other, but it's just one big system with no one that is capable of running our country in an honorable, respectful way.
 

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes it is, and I only came to that conclusion after the results came in tonight. I have two thoughts. One is that this guarantees the reelection of Obama, and two, I would not vote for Romney.

Agreed. Looks like we are stuck with Romney and that probably means we are stuck with Obama.
 

revmwc

Well-Known Member
Until the Republicans can find a way to keep DEM's from crossing over and voting in their primary when the DEM's won't have one it is. Illinois, the Presidents home state really.
 

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Actually, your two things are slightly incorrect: Your not voting for Romney will guarantee Obama's election.

There are four ways to vote at this time: for Obama; against Obama (meaning, the candidate with the highest likelihood of beating him -- which, at this point, is Romney); voting in such a way that Obama will win (i.e., voting for a candidate that doesn't have a chance of actually winning); OR, not voting at all (which in effect means you voted for the winner, since you didn't use your voting power to keep that individual out of office, or get that individual in office).

Of the first 3, 2 mean Obama will win.

My recommendation to all: Vote your conscience. Decide for yourself if your conscience will allow you to sleep by knowing that you helped Obama get re-elected, and thus subjecting you, your family, and your friends to 4 more years.


While it looks like I'm trying to make a case for voting against Obama, I personally haven't decided which way I'm going to vote.

No lesser of two evils vote casting for me. I must stand before God one day and will not have my voting laid at my charge. You may charge me, but God is the righteous Judge and I will trust that He will honor integrety even if my fellow Americans do not.
 

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Those who refuse to vote for the opponent of Obama are essentially voting for Obama whether they want to admit it or not.

Why do people resort to this kind of manipulation? You know what this statement sounds like? It sounds like one of those emails you get or facebook postings that say if you agree with this pass it on, if you don't then delete it. People try to force others to agree with them, I personally delete all of them just because they tried to manipulate me to pass it on. It's the same thing you are doing here. It doesn't work with me, I will take my chances at the Judgment Seat of Christ and see if Jesus believes I voted for Obama by not voting for his lead opponant.
 

steaver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Until the Republicans can find a way to keep DEM's from crossing over and voting in their primary when the DEM's won't have one it is. Illinois, the Presidents home state really.

Yeah, thats one of the dumbest things I ever heard of, democrats allowed to vote in a republican primary. Another dumb thing is this delegate awarding mess. Some states giving all and some not.
 
Top