.

POLL: Should Candidates Concede to Romney?

Some say the race is over, but others argue there the candidates still have time and delegates.

As the elections creep closer, calls are increasing for Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to step aside and concede the Republican nomination.

So far, that has not happened. And the other candidates point out that they are still very much in the race.

What do you think? Should they step aside? Or should the race continue?

Vote in our poll and share your thoughts in our comments section.

Mark Cain March 25, 2012 at 02:14 PM
I get a kick how uninformed Nobamabotts keep yelling Bush's fault. REGIME CHANGE 2012 FOR OUR CHILDRENS FUTURE. OUR CONSTITUTION IS BEING KILLED BY NOBAMA! Romney will be chosen to stop the Nobama tyrant. My shoe could win the race and do a better job than the tyrant. The others should indeed drop out at this point.
David Nolta March 25, 2012 at 02:20 PM
Uh oh, Marky's back with his really clever names, thereby lifting the tone of the conversation. Still, I would watch a debate in which Mr. Cain's shoe goes up against Newt Gingrich, "head to toe". Or any other configuration you can think of.
David Nolta March 25, 2012 at 02:20 PM
Who caused that unemployment? Who oversaw the stock market crash? Which government, which party, which regime, caused the plummet in American self-confidence? Who started the wars, by a series of deceptions, and who OPENED Guantanamo? I'm sorry your schedule doesn't seem to allow doing things right. Obama has fulfilled numerous important promises, and continues to struggle to do the best for the greatest number of people. Not one of the Republican nominees has a fraction of his integrity or intelligence. But by all means, let the show go on.
milfordman March 25, 2012 at 07:03 PM
Well, it's no surprise that the Democrats here have every manner of excuse for Obama's abyssmal performance. That's the 2012 campaign theme after all: Don't blame us! Blame Bush, or Congress, or Cheney, or those Wall Street guys; wait, no, it's the Chinese' fault. If it wasn't for that, we would never have passed that trillion dollare of right-in-the-toilet stimulus, or kept Guantanomo open, or gone into Syria, or the Sudan, or Pakistan, or used drones to kill Americans, or piled up more debt in 3 years than Bush did in 8 years, or taken over the auto industry, or pissed all that money away on Solyndra and a dozen other green-fail projects. And of course, it was Bush who made us put the kabosh on the Keystone Pipeline, and cede the Gulf to the Brazilians and Chinese, and sold guns to Mexican drug cartels, tried to close a Boeing plant in South Carolina, pull a parliamentery trick to get the disastrous Obamacare passed. And of course, it is definitely Bush's fault the Democrat controlled Senate hasn't put together a budget in almost 3 years. I mean I could go on and on with all the horrible things others made Obama and the Democrats do. Why should we be surprised? Democrats have been making excuses for Fidel Castro for 50 years. They've got it down to a science.
Interested Resident March 25, 2012 at 09:52 PM
No need to mention the mess we got into, I guess, or the fact that it is easier to get into a mess than to get out of it. So, do you think Mitt is the man with the plan, or do you like one of the others? What is their best quality as leader? What will be the promise that they can keep in the 3 years before they start re-campaigning that will keep you in their corner.
James Walsh III March 26, 2012 at 05:19 PM
Reading all this, the key points are that obama is a socialist, plain and simple. mit is, for all intents and purposes, a *closet* socialistic republican. If the two of them were the *only* choices out there, I would be forced to vote for mitt, since obama and his cronies want to do away with the structure of the Constitution itself, and make us into something like Cuba...or at least France. You may say "Well, so what, if it's like France, especially?" Well, I'll tell you...it is a government that is a "Fundamentaly changed" (a favorite phrase of obama...) form of constitutional government...more socialistic than *For The People.* I am a republican, not only by registration...but by what form of government I stand behind. obama is...now (he was a registered socialist long ago, I believe in his college days)...a registered *democrat,* but though republican and democratic forms of government differ rather slightly, compared to the difference between either of them, and socialism, obama's politics clearly paint a picture of his true intentions, his motivation, being socialism/communism. I only warn against mitt, because he is *The Entertainer*...he changes his act from person to person, in order to get the person's vote. If the Republican Party does, ultimately, promote romney as *it's man,* I pray to God that a romney presidency *will* be much more Constitutional than the obama one has been.
David Nolta March 26, 2012 at 07:30 PM
That Mitt Romney is NOT so very different in some of his views from Barack Obama should surprise nobody--Mitt only cares about winning, and President Obama is a politician who has shown he knows how to win. Obama is not a socialist, and never was, and if that unfounded accusation is representative of your take on the matter, then your take on the matter is grossly inaccurate. As for The Constitution, it belongs to all of us, not just the few who choose, when their party is not in the White House, to squeak about how "it's in danger!". All partisanship aside (and all false accusations aside, and all shameful and grossly inaccurate name-calling aside--"Socialist!!" "Communist!"--you do know, James, that McCarthy's been dead for half a century, right? We don't burn witches anymore, thank you very much), The Constitution is a living thing, and open to interpretation. If we hadn't "messed with it" before, there would still be slaves, and women wouldn't have the vote. Maybe that's what some people miss? Too bad.
sheryl March 27, 2012 at 10:23 PM
David Nolta is really Rahm Emmanuel
David Nolta March 27, 2012 at 11:39 PM
I speak from experience when I say that David Nolta is David Nolta. Now Sheryl, who or what is she? Someone up front about who she is? Someone who calls a spade a spade, or a David a Rahm? She is apparently someone who takes liberties with other people. But we will not stoop to Sheryl's name-calling, even though we ARE the Mayor of Chicago. And by the way, it's Emanuel with one "M".
UglyHat March 28, 2012 at 12:47 AM
I’m pretty sure that during the Democratic primaries, then Senator Obama argued against Hillary Clinton’s health care proposal, and specifically against the mandate. This is what primary season is about. Scare out as many skeletons and force as many gaffes as you can so you can choose the best candidate and sharpen his/her arguments for the real opponent. Don’t end it now. Romney needs the spring training. The World Series is in the fall.
David Nolta March 28, 2012 at 01:09 AM
That ain't no skeleton. Clearly both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe that health care--basic health coverage for all human beings in this country--is a right. But yes, by all means, may the best candidate survive the spin and come out viable. And may the best person win, this time, as happened last time, and as happens every once in a while in this great democracy.
milfordman March 28, 2012 at 01:22 PM
That's right, ugly. And now Obama's arguements against Hillarycare are being used in the Supreme Court to pummel the President's case! Imagine that. Beauty.
David Nolta March 28, 2012 at 02:15 PM
Fine, fine, but you are blind to the forest because of the trees--or rather, you are putting off solving the problem because of the politics. And there IS a problem: people can't live without health care; a lot of people in this country can't afford health care (more every year); YOU or your loved ones could be those people; and there is, in civilized countries and among many citizens of our own, a just and humane sense of communal responsibility. Start there, and move forward. Mitt did. And so did Obama.
UglyHat March 28, 2012 at 02:23 PM
Agreed. But this mess creates new problems and doesn't solve the problems it was designed to solve. In fact, it may make them worse. Oh, and it may very well be unconstitutional. But let’s not worry about the small stuff, just get something passed.
David Nolta March 28, 2012 at 02:54 PM
Oh UglyHat, I don't worry about The Constitution--you alone are guarding it so well. Its sacred words, which can never change, which only a sacred few understand, and have the right to interpret. But the evolution of humankind will not be slowed on this issue anymore than it was on the issues of human slavery or female suffrage. It will take time, and there will be setbacks and mistakes, but in the end, the spirit of The Constitution will triumph over even its words--words written at a time and by a citizenry different from our own, but in a spirit that makes it possible for us to fulfill in our own time its promise of universal justice.
UglyHat March 28, 2012 at 03:36 PM
I know you don't worry about it. Most on the left don't. But rest assured, it is not I alone who is concerned.
David Nolta March 28, 2012 at 03:59 PM
If you understood anybody's sarcasm but your own, YOU might worry me.
UglyHat March 28, 2012 at 04:13 PM
I understand sarcasm, though I’ll admit it is harder to detect in text than in person. I think what you display is not entirely sarcasm, or perhaps not at all. Your rants are starting to remind me of the vocal minority. Those that want something despite procedure or protocol that says they can’t have it, who continue to scream about it until someone finally gives in. I tire of the endless, repetitious volley where you state your positions that I know well, and I state mine, which you are well aware of. But that is often the goal of the vocal minority, isn’t it…scream until everyone tires, then get your way. Sorry to be so direct, just being honest.
David Nolta March 28, 2012 at 04:47 PM
Oh UglyHat, your paternalistic tone, your description of my comments as rants and yours as reasonable, your strange characterization of my position as 1) easily summarized by you, as if I were somehow your subject; and 2) as being that of the minority (what country are you living in? what year is it? like you, I am a minority of one); your gross liberties and inaccuracies (for starters, I never scream, UglyHat). If you are tired of what you describe as our "endless, repetitious volley", well, I trust you to come up with a remedy for that... Now, UglyHat, are you really, as you say, sorry? If you are--if in this you are for once sincere--my guess is that it is not for being honest--you are not that in this latest diatribe--but for being insulting. That's an old one: "forgive me for saying something mean." Why not try being less mean? Why not NOT say the things you simultaneously say you are sorry for? Hmmmm?
James Walsh III March 28, 2012 at 06:30 PM
Mr Nolta: Are you aware of the circle of close friends that obama keeps...and the fact that, yes, indeed he WAS in the socialist party as a college student!! His father (biological) was a devoted, and very robust communist mind of Kenya, and his essay on why Kenya should have had it's change from socialism (which it was, when the British pulled out), into more of a *communist* nation, was a key inspirational piece that actually *did* motivate the governmental change in Kenya from a Socialistic Democracy, to the more communistic structure it has today. I don't care what spin obama is trying to sell *now* about *who* he is. Like you said, he is a typical politician, and knows how to sell himself when he needs to. His life history, his closest friends, and his own parents...point to the actual *obama* he is *inside* and in his ultimate political choices. With his bio dad being a communist, his mom being a socialist, his best friends being socialist/communist activists, and some of his key advisors he previously had employed being major voices for socialist/communist movements...come on now. I mean...come on!! And I would also have to state that John Wayne has gone on to the other side, long ago, as well. Were you aware that John was a major anti-communist, pro*Patriot* activist as well?? You mention McCarthy...but John, who is still loved by many, was the McCarthy of Hollywood. Our Constitution is for a Republic, not a socialistic, Nany State.
David Nolta March 28, 2012 at 06:38 PM
Oh James, I am on the fly, but I must again point out that Obama was NEVER a Socialist. And there is nothing more UN-American than to blame the child for anything that the parent may, or may not, have been or done...
Mary MacDonald (Editor) March 28, 2012 at 06:39 PM
James, come on now! You said it first. If my father was a union organizer, does that mean I am? If my leanings in my 20s were more radical, does that mean I can't change my thinking as I get older? Your post is hilarious. It's not the 50s again, except on Mad Men, right?
James Walsh III March 28, 2012 at 06:50 PM
This poll, in my own opinion, has digressed...the question is whether to leave the Republican Party with romney as it's choice to go against obama. Here is a link to give some more food for thought on the issue: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/romney-in-02-only-connection-to-the-republican-party-is-my-party-registration/
James Walsh III March 28, 2012 at 06:57 PM
I am not saying that everyone ends up with the beliefs of their parents, but obama's life has shadowed the fact that he has, in his approach towards politics, followed behind his father and mother's views. And, yes, he was. And yes, I for one know personally how events can change the person we were, into some one completely different...but obama's policies, his *inner circle*, etc, all indicate that he has not left his affection for the ideas of his parents, and they also indicate his current bias in encouraging certain policies.
James Walsh III March 28, 2012 at 07:10 PM
My response was good for both David, and yourself, Mary. If holding to politics of the 1950's or earlier makes me sound like an *Ol' Fart/Fuddy Duddy/etc*...then so be it. lol I'm only...in a few weeks...34, but, I love the republic that the Founding Fathers crafted for us. Like Ben Franklin stated to the woman who asked:"So what have you given us, Sir." *"A republic...if you can keep it." In other words, even before *socialism/communism* was even in the English vocabulary as a form of government, the Founding Fathers were skeptical as to whether a republican government...By The People, For The People...could succeed, since it was still a form of government that hadn't seen much longevity in history yet. We are still a farely young government...not even 300 years old yet...but it's still pushing on. We need help, yes, but we still...at the moment...still maintain our Founders' established Constitution. I don't want to see that change for my children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc...so I do not support any politician who even wishes to humor a slightly more socialistic government over our republican form. But...good mercy...this poll's conversation is really going off on a philosophical/political tangent. Back to basics of this poll: I don't believe that all the candidates challenging mitt should concede to him. Maybe those who are faaaaar behind, but those who have given him a good run for his money so far...keep going for now.
David Nolta March 28, 2012 at 08:26 PM
James, you have made an accusation, that Obama was a "Socialist." It is up to you to present credible evidence for the accusation. As far as your comment that "obama's life has shadowed the fact that he has, in his approach towards politics, followed behind his father and mother's views"--I have no idea at all what you mean by it, beyond expressing an intention to tar the President with the same brush that you feel is a taint on the parents (who had separate views about many things, surely.). And it is still absurd and un-American (and un-Constitutional!) to hold anybody responsible for his or her parents' views. To claim that you are being old-fashioned in this doesn't quite cover it: you are being medieval, and when it comes to individuals and their human rights, that's not a good thing.
Greg Tart March 28, 2012 at 10:22 PM
"It's un-american to hold anybody responsible..." I agree, but Obama did call his book "Dreams of my Father"- so he invites the comparison
James Walsh III March 29, 2012 at 12:38 AM
David, if you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, then your blinders are on quite securely, and I doubt anyone will be able to help you see exactly what is right in front of your face. But, enough about obama...God willing, he wont be a two term president. Back to *obama light*...romney...
David Nolta March 29, 2012 at 02:32 AM
James, I guess I must have blinders on, since I still don't see your evidence that Obama "was a Socialist". And if you don't see that you can't hold the actions--any actions, ever--of parents against their children, then forgive me for not taking your interpretations of anything else--the Constitution, the intentions of the Founders, or even John Wayne--very seriously. But yes, by all means, back to the Republican show!
David Nolta March 29, 2012 at 02:38 AM
No one can't be compared to his or her parents. Which is to say, go ahead, compare Mr. Obama to his dad or his grandfathers or his second cousin once removed--you don't need an invitation to compare--compare away. But in this country, in this day and age, it is not acceptable to hold any person responsible for the activities of his or her parents, or for any other adults in or not in his or her family. So thank you for granting at least that.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »