What kind of name is "Mit?"

My question is: who the hell is voting for Mitt Romney? Literally no one seems to like him, but he always comes in at the top of the polls. How?

My question is: who the hell is voting for Mitt Romney? Literally no one seems to like him, but he always comes in at the top of the polls. How?

Mitt is a nickname for Milton. In Romney's case, the nickname is his middle name. His first name is Willard.

Willard Mitt Romney, which given name would you use?

Will

No, that would be "Mill." I think that is still better than Mitt.

pretty much

I've just literally never heard a single Republican express belief in, enthusiasm for, or even approval for Romney.

My question is: who the hell is voting for Mitt Romney? Literally no one seems to like him, but he always comes in at the top of the polls. How?

Also, glad to see Huntsman with a strong showing.

Mitt is a nickname for Milton. In Romney's case, the nickname is his middle name. His first name is Willard.

Willard Mitt Romney, which given name would you use?

After Congressman Paul's strong showing in Iowa, the national media reported that Santorum was the big winner, and that Paul's finish should be disregarded, because after-all, Iowa wasn't really representitive of Conservative values, and that New Hampshire would be a much better indicator of the true national opinion. So, the polls are closed in NH, and almost all districts have reported... and wouldn't you know it, Dr. Paul had an even stronger showing in NH than in Iowa, garnering almost 25% of the vote. The media's take? "New Hampshire really doesn't have it's finger on the pulse of American Conservatives, this should be regarded as a clear win for Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul's showing should be disregarded. South Carolina is where real Conservatism will show it's favor."

Please illustrate how they are "very obviously highly dissociated from reality". I never seen, nor heard of, them acting as if their consciousness is detached from their emotions, body and/or immediate surroundings; quite the opposite.

Ron Paul wants to cut five federal agencies and $1 trillion from the budget from one year to the next. That's an actual position that he has. I'm 100% convinced he's willing to veto everything coming out of Congress and completely shut the federal government down until he gets what he wants.

You make it sound like that's unreasonable. It's drastic. That doesn't make it unreasonable.

People need to be made to understand that if we do not take drastic measures now, they will be forced upon us in a far more severe manner later when the economy disintegrates. That's not fringe, extremist thinking. That's simple logic. The US economy is on the verge of collapsing under the weight of its own debt burden. This isn't some far off, long-term change in policy that needs to be done to prevent it. It is imminent, and even with actions like Paul is proposing, it might be too late. Without them -- every day that the status quo is maintained, the result becomes worse and pushes ever closer toward inevitability.

You make it sound like that's unreasonable. It's drastic. That doesn't make it unreasonable.

People need to be made to understand that if we do not take drastic measures now, they will be forced upon us in a far more severe manner later when the economy disintegrates. That's not fringe, extremist thinking. That's simple logic. The US economy is on the verge of collapsing under the weight of its own debt burden. This isn't some far off, long-term change in policy that needs to be done to prevent it. It is imminent, and even with actions like Paul is proposing, it might be too late. Without them -- every day that the status quo is maintained, the result becomes worse and pushes ever closer toward inevitability.