Nevada final: Romney 50%, Gingrich 21%

posted at 9:15 am on February 6, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

We’ve now had two caucuses in the Republican nomination process in 2012, and both have embarrassed their state parties in some fashion. In Iowa, it took several days to discover that the initial count had been incorrect, and that Rick Santorum had actually won the contest.  The Super Bowl on Sunday finished before the count from Nevada’s Saturday’s caucuses, but this time the favorite beat the spread:

Mitt Romney won Saturday’s Nevada caucuses with his highest portion of a state’s vote yet, just over 50%, according to certified results released Monday by the Nevada Republican Party.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who also won the state’s GOP caucuses in 2008, received more than twice the votes of his closest opponent.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich finished in second place with just over 21% of the vote. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas placed third at 18.7%, and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania earned 9.9%.

Romney got his first majority win of the season.  The 29-point win slightly outperformed the pre-caucus polling, but Romney came up a little short of his 51% victory in Nevada’s 2008 caucuses.  Republicans came up short as well, casting 11,000 fewer votes than four years ago, a dropoff of about 25%.  That will keep concerns alive about base enthusiasm in this cycle.

One surprise from the weekend was Ron Paul, whose support turned out to be disappointingly small in a state where he had his best chance to compete:

But in a state where expectations for his campaign were higher than anywhere else to date, the Texas congressman’s third-place finish marked an underwhelming outcome for a candidate whose strategy is predicated on running well in caucus states like Nevada. …

While Paul won a respectable 19 percent Saturday — 5 points higher than four years ago — he nevertheless placed third behind Newt Gingrich, whose haphazard Nevada effort barely compared to Paul’s disciplined and well-organized operation. …

Paul set up a Nevada office more than six months ago. His campaign claimed thousands of volunteers. They aggressively targeted service workers, Latinos, rural voters, veterans and even Mormons.

While Gingrich invested no money on television ads in the state, Paul outspent even winner Mitt Romney. Paul poured in $869,650 compared to Romney’s $488,460 since the start of the year, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group.

But the returns were modest. In 2008, he carried just one of the Nevada’s 17 counties or their equivalents. This year, he carried two. He lost a third, Storey County, to Romney by one vote — 53 to 52.

Storey County is the home of the brothel owned by Dennis Hof, who had actively campaigned for Paul.  Looks like his “Pimping for Paul” campaign didn’t quite measure up.

Is it time to end caucuses?  They’re a holdover from the 19th century, and they end up being less efficient and less reliable than primaries.  Proponents argue that it allows the parties’ activist base to dictate to the establishment, but we have seen little evidence of that in Iowa and Nevada.  What we have seen is outmoded methods of ballot-casting and counting that take days to get right, when states already have the infrastructure to allow all registered voters (or those within one party in closed primaries) to participate, regardless of whether they can show up in one narrow time frame on a single day to participate.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I do not think that Newt is going to win. I think I am stuck with what is today. Not sure what happened to Newt between South Carolina and Florida, but it is like he gave up himself. I am really disappointed this year. We started out with 5 acceptable people, I should have listened to the Perry people and Cain people a bit closer…

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Newt’s ability to come within 29 points of Romney in a 4 way race clearly shows that Newt has the best chance of defeating Obama in the general election./

talkingpoints on February 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Newt’s ability to come within 29 points of Romney in a 4 way race clearly shows that Newt has the best chance of defeating Obama in the general election./

talkingpoints on February 6, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Romney’s total inability to articulate the nuance between himself and Obama clearly shows he has the best ability to defeat Obama in the general election. Really, who has been convinced of his argument that it is not the same because, well it just isn’t! Romney really needs to get his Kerry on. Since he is pretty much Kerry in word and deed, it should not be so hard to do it.

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Obamacare (D) progressive and wrong!
Romneycare (R) …???… conservative and right …???…

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 1:13 PM

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 1:04 PM

What happened to Newt was the realization that he did not have the cash coming in and contrary to popular opinion, Newt has never balanced a budget nor does he understand how to efficiently and effectively keep expenses low. Bottom line, Newt saw he was running out of money (he is in the hole to the tune of about $600,000+) that kind of reality is what smacked him up side of the head between SC and FL.

If you are going to run a campaign on a shoestring budget, you better know what your talking about and how to do just that, apparently Newt did not. (The debt to Tiffany’s should have been a clue for most Newt supporters he knew nothing about balancing a budget.) The so called balanced budget during his term as speaker is a bust, deficits existed all four years, how do you have a balanced budget with deficits? Answer: You Don’t.

Apparently, an accounting lesson Newt has not learned on the outside of congress: you cannot use the GAG (Government Accounting Gimmickry) rule anywhere else but in Government.

uhangtight on February 6, 2012 at 1:16 PM

I should have listened to the Perry people and Cain people a bit closer…

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Heed your own advice and research Ron Paul. Don’t listen to what some of these fools tell you about Paul, because they are just repeating what the media tells them. Reading most of these comments is like listening to the Sean Hannity Show. Do your OWN homework on him. I promise, you will not be disappointed. And if you don’t like him…well, then you can actually come up with real facts as to why you do not support him instead of just saying things like…he’s a racist, isolationist anti-semite…terms which most Paul hater throw around. He’s the only true conservative out there.

Truth is treason in an empire of lies – Ron Paul

dom89031 on February 6, 2012 at 1:19 PM

uhangtight on February 6, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Your points sound reasonable, your twist on the other hand, makes it hard for me to follow to the end. I am talking about Newt’s actions, or rather, lack of actions in the debates. I do not understand why he was not prepared for a progressive like Romney to lie through his teeth to every American viewing and had evidence that Romney was lying. Instead, he let Romney get away with grand theft vote through deception.

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Truth is treason in an empire of lies – Ron Paul

dom89031 on February 6, 2012 at 1:19 PM

He should know – he is the biggest liar in congress.

Rebar on February 6, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Santorum in LAST Place…..I wonder what HA did not make that the headline??? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM>>>>>>>>>>>>>……

georgealbert on February 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Ruh roh.

csdeven on February 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM

dom89031 on February 6, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Paul is ok for some domestic issues. But many of his domestic issues would give progressive a long term advantage and I am unwilling to cede the rest of the world to those nations willing to engage the rest of the world.

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Romneycare.

SparkPlug on February 6, 2012 at 1:30 PM

He should know – he is the biggest liar in congress.

Rebar on February 6, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Please elaborate…

dom89031 on February 6, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Heed your own advice and research Ron Paul. Don’t listen to what some of these fools tell you about Paul, because they are just repeating what the media tells them. Reading most of these comments is like listening to the Sean Hannity Show. Do your OWN homework on him. I promise, you will not be disappointed. And if you don’t like him…well, then you can actually come up with real facts as to why you do not support him instead of just saying things like…he’s a racist, isolationist anti-semite…terms which most Paul hater throw around. He’s the only true conservative out there.

Truth is treason in an empire of lies – Ron Paul

dom89031 on February 6, 2012 at 1:19 PM

I did. Over four years ago.

I found him a lacking, hypocritical, flip-flopping liar.

catmman on February 6, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Doomsayers, relax. Romney is going to win this primary contest and he will need your anti-romney zeal directed at Obama. When I was in Perry’s camp, it was clear to me then and it is clear to me now.

p.s. can people stop complaining about Romney “buying the election,” leave that garbage at The Daily Kos blog commenting section where it belongs. We are conservatives not campaign finance regulation liberals.

ConservativeLaw on February 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM

catmman on February 6, 2012 at 1:50 PM

can you site me a few examples of his flip flops please

dom89031 on February 6, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Please elaborate…

dom89031 on February 6, 2012 at 1:45 PM

30 years in congress, nothing accomplished except sucking $31 Billion in pork from the US Taxpayers for his district.

Yeah yeah, I know, “pork is pork except for Ron Paul’s pork”. No one is buying that nonsense, they didn’t last primary, not this primary, not ever.

Americans have not one iota more liberty because of Ron Paul, only an enormous bill that our children and grandchildren will have to pay, because he had to buy the votes for his career in congress, lining the pockets of special interests, all the while squawking about fiscal conservatism and liberty to his deranged cult of personality.

Ron Paul is a liar of the worst sort.

Rebar on February 6, 2012 at 1:57 PM

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 1:29 PM

We can’t continue to spend trillions of dollars to protect the rest of the world…while we go broke. Who is going to protect us when we can’t afford to protect ourselves.

dom89031 on February 6, 2012 at 2:00 PM

We can’t continue to spend trillions of dollars to protect the rest of the world…while we go broke. Who is going to protect us when we can’t afford to protect ourselves.

dom89031 on February 6, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Actually, yes we can continue to spend trillions of dollars to protect ourselves and our interests around the world. How are we going to defend ourselves when we have no access to the minerals we need that we cannot produce in our own country?

Military spending is perfectly reasonable at 5% of GDP forever. If you want to cut government spending, cut the unconstitutional parts of it. But I will never be comfortable with a military that does not expend at least 5% of GDP in times of peace.

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 2:05 PM

30 years in congress, nothing accomplished except sucking $31 Billion in pork from the US Taxpayers for his district.

And how much did the Federal government suck out of Paul’s district over 30 years? The people in Paul’s district are taxpayers, too. If Paul is merely returning tax money to his constituents in the form of earmarks, he is not a hypocrite. If he is bringing in more money than goes out, he is. It’s that simple.

Mr. Arkadin on February 6, 2012 at 2:07 PM

can you site me a few examples of his flip flops please

dom89031 on February 6, 2012 at 1:55 PM

First he never had anything to do with those newsletters. Didn’t write them, didn’t edit them, didn’t publish or know who did.

Video surfaced of him bragging on them, claiming them to be his.

Then he claimed he only wrote a little of the material in them, from time to time you understand.

He also denied having benefitted from them financially when there are tax records showing he made a pretty decent amount of cash from them over the years.

catmman on February 6, 2012 at 2:09 PM

And how much did the Federal government suck out of Paul’s district over 30 years?

Mr. Arkadin on February 6, 2012 at 2:07 PM

A lot less than $31 Billion, I can assure you.

More – the taxpayers in his district didn’t see a nickle of any of that money.

Liar, hypocrite, conman – the legacy of Ron Paul.

Rebar on February 6, 2012 at 2:13 PM

It does not particularly matter who wins the nomination.

Because I won’t vote for anyone but Paul, or someone who will reduce the deficit by changing our foreign policy and ending entire departments.

I am willing to vote for someone who does “not have a chance” as that thing no longer bothers me. I can tell you I would never vote for a Gingrich, Obama, Romney or Santorum. Santorum, might be a little less dangerous than any of them but he’d be a risk when it comes to rights of Muslims and gays, therefore it’d be a risk to all of us.

Sigh

fatlibertarianinokc on February 6, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Liar, hypocrite, conman – the legacy of Ron Paul.

Rebar on February 6, 2012 at 2:13 PM

You’re a classic example of being intellectually dishonest. Paul has been honest from day one. He’s THE MOST HONEST POLITICIAN IN THE GAME. He tells you exactly what he believes and feels and this is why for years he has spoken against SPENDING. By the way, “REBAR”, Paul has not railed against pork in his career so he’s not a hypocrite even though he always voted against it.

You’re just an intellectually dishonest used car salesman who hates Paul’s foreign policy so you trump up small b.s. against the man. Nice try.

It’s your idiotic and dangerous foreign policy that has us on a war footing with Iran. And THAT’S THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE WITH YOU WAR MONGERS. You’re not liars, you’re just ignorant, arrogant and filled with unbridled nationalism that blinds you.

fatlibertarianinokc on February 6, 2012 at 2:41 PM

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Money was on his mind more than the debate. That is my point.

And, from my perspective Newt is the bigger liar. He could not refute Romney’s statements during the debate because they were true. Newt is saying they were lies after the debate. You seem to believe they were lies, I don’t. Your reference was to what happened from SC to FL.

I stated: reality hit Newt like a ton of bricks.
Reality no cash coming in to stop the deficit in the campaign budget. Ever heard of the adage, I’m so broke I can’t pay attention? That is what happened to Newt. Now, do you understand my other comments? He doesn’t know how to balance a budget, he does not know or understand the concept of revenue and expenses. You don’t spend what you do not take in, which he apparently has not learned after leaving Congress. It all ties in if you understand that Newt, former Congress Critter, never really learned how to live within his means or truly balance a budget.

uhangtight on February 6, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I am willing to vote for someone who does “not have a chance” as that thing no longer bothers me. I can tell you I would never vote for a Gingrich, Obama, Romney or Santorum. Santorum, might be a little less dangerous than any of them but he’d be a risk when it comes to rights of Muslims and gays, therefore it’d be a risk to all of us.

Sigh

fatlibertarianinokc

And that’s why you are a Paultard.

xblade on February 6, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Santorum in LAST Place…..I wonder what HA did not make that the headline??? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM>>>>>>>>>>>>>……

georgealbert on February 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Doh!

claudius on February 6, 2012 at 3:04 PM

This Morning: Obama 51% to RINO Romney 45% Yeah, that’s real electability all right!?! The RepublicRAT establishment, in true Mhit-For-Brains fashion, is taking the LEMMINGS over the cliff!?! You know, the very same cliff they threw Granny over!?! Nice goin’, STUPID Party!!!!!

Colatteral Damage on February 6, 2012 at 3:23 PM

uhangtight on February 6, 2012 at 2:52 PM

A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie. During the debate or after the debate, the fact is Romney was lying his ass off and was totally allowed to do so by the media. The final facts come out that Romney was lying. You argument is that because newt could not call him out for the lie it was not a lie? You got some issues to work on my friend.

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 3:35 PM

uhangtight on February 6, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Nailed it.

jimver on February 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Okay, I’ll bite. What were they lies. List them, please, as I said I did not hear one lie come out of Romney’s mouth. I heard truth.

So list the lies, please and thank-you for playing this game.

uhangtight on February 6, 2012 at 3:48 PM

uhangtight on February 6, 2012 at 2:52 PM

A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie. During the debate or after the debate, the fact is Romney was lying his ass off and was totally allowed to do so by the media. The final facts come out that Romney was lying. You argument is that because newt could not call him out for the lie it was not a lie? You got some issues to work on my friend.

astonerii on February 6, 2012

The lie thing, more like in the eye of the beholder…just because newt whinedfor weeks after that debate that ronney lied doesn’t make it so. Why didn’t he reject Romney’s ‘lies’ right there, during the debate, the master debater :-) why didn’t he effectively defend his record when he had the chance to…I simply don’t see the difficulty of that…could be maybe that what romney was saying about him was actually accurate, and newt was just caught off guard and unprepared to spin it, or blame the media, calista’s hair, Romney’s baby killing record, etc..or any other of his usual shticks…

jimver on February 6, 2012 at 3:56 PM

jimver on February 6, 2012 at 3:56 PM

jimver either has a brain eating disease, or he is just plain here to be a hindrance to discussions and debate.

Romney had to redo his campaign disclosure forms for 2007 and 2011 because, surprise, he tried to hide damning evidence of his investments. Of course, I cannot prove he did not just accidentally forget to add those glaringly large items to his disclosures, but considering that he is supposed to be super executive business dude, it is either he did it on purpose or is incompetent.

In those addendum’s was investments outside of his blind trust which he directly oversaw that invested into fannie mae and freddie mac. He said point blank that he did not have any such investments on stage. It is proven fact he lied. He had to have lied, because he just significantly came into realization by having to change his disclosures that he did in fact make those investments. LIE, BUSTED, SUCK IT UP LITTLE BOY!

Romney said he did not do any business which was connected to Medicare, period. Fact, he ran a company that not only did business with medicare, but was cheating them out of hundreds of millions of dollars for unnecessary tests, literally millions of fraudulent charges, was criminal activity, largest to have been brought ever to that date, all done under the careful guidance of one Willard Mitt Romney who only got away with it because he held plausible deniability and conned another company to buy his fraudulently overpriced company right before the investigation got fully underway. So, again, there was a big lie there. Romney did do business, no real way to imagine that he did not remember this, he was running the company while the bogus charges increased exponentially.

Romney is allowed to lie today. he will not be allowed to lie if he is the nominee. Romney is not very likely to beat Obama. The two are like identical twins with very little differentiating them from each other. One might have fuller cheeks, the other might have more upper body muscle mass, but in the end, it is hard to tell them apart.

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 4:35 PM

A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie. During the debate or after the debate, the fact is Romney was lying his ass off and was totally allowed to do so by the media. The final facts come out that Romney was lying. You argument is that because newt could not call him out for the lie it was not a lie? You got some issues to work on my friend.

astonerii on February 6, 2012

Except for the tiny problem that Newt was charged with 84 ethics violations and was sanctioned by the ethics committee, and did have to pay an unprecedented $300,000 for lying to the ethics committee and did resign as speaker (due to unrelated events). So Romney used the word disgrace to describe Newt’s resignation. If you really want, you can call that a lie. And it’s really unfair that Newt would have to run against someone that lies like that because Obama would never lie! Obama has created over 3 million jobs since he’s been in office. We know because he said so. That bogus Cain attack from the bimbo that lived in Axelrod’s building-coincidence. Nope, Newt could totally beat Obama, cause Newt is the best R candidate against an honest opponent.

OK, Newt was only found guilty of lying to the ethics committee (which is why he had to pay the record fine), the other charges were dropped. But that doesn’t mean the charges didn’t happen. The ads I have seen by Mitt discuss the existance of the charges. They did find definite evidence that Newt was allowing lobbyists to determine policy on multiple occasions, but decided he had stopped so they didn’t pursue it. They could not definitively show that Newt failed to declare over $200,000 in income, so they dropped that as well. The Washington Post has all of their articles on the matter archived.

Those are the “lies” that I have seen you bring up in the past. If there are other specific instances, please enumerate them so that we can determine whether Romney was lying or not.
Thanks.

talkingpoints on February 6, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Except for the tiny problem that Newt was charged with 84 ethics violations and was sanctioned by the ethics committee,

Which is a good argument if your looking to be a upstanding a person as say someone attacking an exonerated rapist for a rape he did not commit because he was accused, charged, found guilty. Very upstanding there. Next you know, you will be applauding the Duke Teachers who attacked the Duke La Cross team members with that letter they wrote. Of course that was not where I made the charge of Romney lying.

and did have to pay an unprecedented $300,000 for lying to the ethics committee and did resign as speaker (due to unrelated events).

As above, the level of the punishment, which it was not anyways, is irrelevant when you later find out that the person was not guilty at any point in time and that the punishment was an injustice, I guess an injustice is something to use for political benefit now days. How do you resign from a position that someone else was voted to fill? He resigned from the House of Representatives, after an election victory. Not so much disgrace there, huh? The $300,000 was Newt giving his unethical accusers a fig leaf to cut the investigation, which was preventing the House from getting things done. His lawyer submitted a version of a paper that had incorrect information on, Newt never lied and was not convicted of lying to the investigators, just that he should have caught that paper and known it was false and not had it submitted. He had to submit thousands of papers, and nothing but one mistake was ever found in the witch hunt. You would never survive that scrutiny.

So Romney used the word disgrace to describe Newt’s resignation. If you really want, you can call that a lie. And it’s really unfair that Newt would have to run against someone that lies like that because Obama would never lie! Obama has created over 3 million jobs since he’s been in office. We know because he said so. That bogus Cain attack from the bimbo that lived in Axelrod’s building-coincidence. Nope, Newt could totally beat Obama, cause Newt is the best R candidate against an honest opponent.

None of that was what I was arguing at all. Just a new strawman for you to take out to the shed for a good raping I guess. You like those strawmen, does raping them make you feel more like a man than say tackling the actual topic of discussion? I already said I was disappointed that Newt was not ready for the lies coming from Mitt, but the lies that anyone fully informed know and the lie you say is the only possible one are a world apart. Romney will not benefit from the world not knowing the true lies in the general.

talkingpoints on February 6, 2012 at 4:39 PM

The lies I was talking about by the way were not having control of where he invested money and not having any connection to a company that billed medicare.

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Romney did do business, no real way to imagine that he did not remember this, he was running the company while the bogus charges increased exponentially.

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 4:35 PM

By the way, anyone attempting to argue that Romney was likely kept in the dark as to how they were making such huge increases in sales and profits for his term are arguing that Romney has no clue how to run a business and will effectively turn the entire United States of America into a sucker just waiting to be taken to the bank.

Romney: So John, how are things going for the business, give me some numbers?

John: Well, we just increased sales by 25% and profit is up 40%.

Romney: Very well continue as you are doing, I have no interest at all figuring out how we increased our sales by 25% or our profit by an even larger 40%, I got to go tee off in 30 minutes.

Yup, going to be good times, good times indeed! Audit the fed, LOL. Like he would be able to figure out that they misplaced a trillion or even 50 trillion dollars. Super businessman Romney to the rescue. Huh? TEE TIME!

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 5:14 PM

jimver either has a brain eating disease, or he is just plain here to be a hindrance to discussions and debate.

you’re projecting your mental issues on others..that’s ok, it’s part of the derangement…

Romney is not very likely to beat Obama. The two are like identical twins with very little differentiating them from each other. One might have fuller cheeks, the other might have more upper body muscle mass, but in the end, it is hard to tell them apart.

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 4:35 PM

like this has any weight coming from you…if they are like identical twins, how do you know which twin will win and why? :-)…yeh, tune us in to the Source that your brain is connected to :-)

jimver on February 6, 2012 at 5:37 PM

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 5:14 PM

LOL….you are the whiniest little 8itch I have read around here since the last batch of Krazy KOS Kiddies were culled. Thanks for the laughs!

csdeven on February 6, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Well 50% in a 4 way race, with 2nd place at 21% isn’t good enough. He needed to run up the score! /s

BTW, over at RCP Mitt’s national average is at an all time high this season. He’s up to 20% 25% 30% 33.7% and climbing. But, you know 80% 75% 70% 65% will never vote for him and all that.

MJBrutus on February 6, 2012 at 5:54 PM

like this has any weight coming from you…if they are like identical twins, how do you know which twin will win and why? :-)…yeh, tune us in to the Source that your brain is connected to :-)

jimver on February 6, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Like membership, encumbancy has its benefits…

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 5:57 PM

LOL….you are the whiniest little 8itch I have read around here since the last batch of Krazy KOS Kiddies were culled. Thanks for the laughs!

csdeven on February 6, 2012 at 5:50 PM

So, there you go again. Ridicule. Shut down the debate. What do you add to any discussion? Anything? Everything you know is top secret, locked away in your brain, and everyone is supposed to believe you! it is easy to type out a few ridicule words. Can you actually persuade anyone of anything?

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 5:59 PM

The lies I was talking about by the way were not having control of where he invested money and not having any connection to a company that billed medicare.

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea how big investors’ portfolios are handled? DO YOU?

Very similar to my retirement benefit and it is handled by an outside Investment Firm. You give them an overview of where you would like your money to go, you make sure that it is diversified and then you let the Account Manager do the rest. You get a statement at the end of the month that shows a graph or pie chart>stocks, bonds, etc. Not the minute details you are describing especially if it is set up in a “BLIND TRUST”.

So your statement is false based on your lack of knowledge. (Additional Info About Myself: I used to work for an investment firm.) I can appreciate you needed to do some research to better understand and maybe learn a little more about this area.

I do know how these things work in the Financial Investment Firms, so I am sorry but your statement is just flat out false. So, are you the liar?

uhangtight on February 6, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Most of his investments were in blind trusts. That means he did not have a large amount of investments to review on his own. Incompetence, or lies. Which is it?

I have no trouble finding out what a mutual fund is invested in, they send me quarterly reports that list each and every company weighted by value.

As a presidential candidate, he should have known these things in advance and been prepared to have an HONEST debate to persude the people to support him. A simple statement of, yes, I know I was invested in that stock through a mutual fund would have been honest. But to straight out lie, that he had no control over the investment because it was in a blind trust, well, its a lie. Spin it how you want, he knew what was in it when he updated his 2007 and 2011 filings to fix his error/subterfuge.

He is the man making Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac support a major primary liability, he needs to take the responsibility for his attacks and accept the consequences and not do like President Present does on everything and lay blame everywhere else. He needs to man up, take the medicine he is dishing, and be honest about it.

Recall, he was pushing home prices higher and higher in the lead up to the meltdown in Massachusetts with major buys into the housing market for low income people. Recall he was a speaker at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac talking about how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac help states with their housing problems. Recall that Romney was a consultant, or was he a lobbiest? for Bain and the companies they invested in. Recall that he drove at least one company into the dirt such that they had to get a major taxpayer assisted bailout for the pension the company had.

He who lives in glass house should dress and shower in basement. In other words, if he does not want the backlash, keep the debate on positive things, like his record! LOL LOL OMG LOL that would be epic to see him do that for a change!

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Ridicule.

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 5:59 PM

hahaha. That’s all the effort you are worth. And that is just to watch you twist yourself in knots trying to make a lick of sense.

csdeven on February 6, 2012 at 7:27 PM

hahaha. That’s all the effort you are worth. And that is just to watch you twist yourself in knots trying to make a lick of sense.

csdeven on February 6, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Welcome aboard alinsyite. It shows that your heart is a true progressive. Abuse your power unwisely as all those before you have and those after you will.

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Like membership, encumbancy has its benefits…

astonerii on February 6, 2012 at 5:57 PM

and its disadvantages too…and it’s incumbency btw…

jimver on February 6, 2012 at 9:43 PM

hahaha. That’s all the effort you are worth. And that is just to watch you twist yourself in knots trying to make a lick of sense.

csdeven on February 6, 2012 at 7:27 PM

after spending a whole afternoon researching how investment funds work and copying and pasting from different sources ad nauseam :-)…what’s sad, he still doesn’t get it…

jimver on February 6, 2012 at 9:47 PM

America’s sheep are following along with the Establishment who says ObAma cannot be beat. Romney will facilitate taking of the Senate, while the ObaMA keeps his office. Romney’s electability is based on the people in NV who gave the rest of Dingy Harry ? Gingrich would lose both houses because the election would be about him and not Obama. So where does Rick Santorum comes in in that equation ?

democratsarefools on February 6, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Seriously, what part of Eastwood doing the ad doesn’t promote free enterprise?
He got paid for doing an AD. That is what Free Enterprise is all about.

Do my comments mean I approve of his specific comments? NO!

It means I approve of capitalism. He.Got.Paid.

That is capitalism.

ladyingray on February 6, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Between Romney and Paul supporters I am not sure which group is less informed to the point of completely misinformed. As for Paul’s so called foreign policy, there is none to begin with.

riddick on February 7, 2012 at 12:00 AM

Romney crushed the competition here.

This is starting to become a regular thing.

bluegill on February 7, 2012 at 6:02 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3