Urban legend says Ike forced Nixon to concede before it could be a controversy.

I don't think Romney ever goes after Obamacare if elected. I think it is a big time subsidy to the insurance market at this point so his donors will not be interested in removing it. I also think that he does not really give a **** about anything, so he is not personally motivated to enact specific policies. Obamacare will have a politically beneficial impact for whoever is in charge. Removing will hinder anyone's ability to get elected again.

Don't forget most people have no ideas what is in the Affordable Care Act, and almost every part except the mandate polls extremely well.

Santorum's continued polling strength in the midwest is a little surprising to me. I wonder whether he's actually going to win some more states...

He is likely to win both Minnesota and Missouri and perhaps come in 2nd in Colorado today.

These are not big prizes but would certainly help him claim some legitimacy as the conservative "anti-Mitt".

At this point both Santorum and Gingrich are in a standoff waiting for the other one to drop out. I dislike them both, but Santorum polls much more positively than Newt among Republicans (in terms of likeability at least, if not electability). I do think Santorum has a chance to outlast Newt, but he absolutely needs Newt to drop out before the big southern states if he wants any chance at all of beating Romney.

I read an article yesterday about santorum in MN. It seems a lot of people in the Midwest are distancing themselves from Romney and Newt because they perceive them to be buying the election. Combine that with his religious background and he may get more support yet.

Bachmann being ****ing hilarious...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ect-candidate/

He will go after it, but there is no way the Reps will have a super majority in the senate to repeal the act. The big question is what does the Supreme Court do with the act.

You'll see him go after it, but something will get in the way of fully removing it. We'll end up with some weird hybrid with parts removed, but the worst parts still there.

That's in the hypothetical that Romney somehow wins the general.

We don't have to try and divine Romney's position on Obamacare by looking at political history. He has explicitly said he will repeal it.



Tom's comment and my response had nothing to do with the libertarian position on individual mandates. It addressed the irony of a Paul supporter mocking Romney for asserting state's rights.

R. Money is his street name. Cuz he's from the streets.

Seattlelou, are you saying we should just take Romney's word for it? Because IIRC he has said that it shouldn't be repealed in the past. Some of his people(Coleman?) has said they don't want to repeal it recently.

No not taking his word for it is a much different argument than the one I understood Barrin to be making. If you think that Romney is deceiving the voters by saying he is for repealing Obamacare but won't actually do it that is a different argument than "Romney supporters can't oppose Obamacare."

I haven't heard him "waffle" on repealing Obamacare and would be surprised if he has given that it his actions in MA are a significant political liability, particularly in the primaries. If he is going to waffle it will be after he has secured the nomination in my estimation. I still think that's unlikely given my understanding of the politics and independent voters feeling on the issue.

Romney isn't deceiving anyone...he is simply excluding the words "try to" and "and fail" when he says "I will repeal Obamacare once I'm elected.