Romney in 2016?

[candycorn]

It is too bad that we can't have a redo of the 2012 election. I think a lot of people would change their minds about who they would prefer for President. Do you think he might have a chance in 2016? He is in excellent health and only six months older than Hillary...

Is this satire?

That was my first thought too.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Like I said, even little kids know it.

use to be people tried to stay off welfare now they elected a president so they can stay on welfare.

 

[jwoodie]

Yours is a wholly unsophisticated view of political science. Got your attention?
GWB looks good now because he's not in office making decisions that will piss off 50% of the electorate. A president's approval rating during normal times (absent a war or depression) usually hovers around 50% or so. That he has dropped only ten points in a second term during a scandal and a lot of other controversies is likely a credit to his inherent popularity.

If the election were held today and Romney had to run a campaign for 4-6 months, his "plans" would be highlighted and compared to those of Mr. Obama's and he would lose again by a very wide margin.

Really, are you this unaware of politics?

By "politics" do you mean that we had to reelect our First Black President, despite his obvious incompetence, in order to avoid being branded as "racist?"

In 2008, you may have had a point. In 2012, Obama was and still is the superior choice to Mitt Romney. I've often said that "white guilt" was Obama's real running mate in 2008.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...te-romney-got-59-of-white-12.html#post6828942

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/269700-what-you-would-have-wanted-7.html#post6576924

And one of my favorite threads of all time:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/227995-hollywood-rides-to-obama-s-rescue-5.html#post5444409

It may be wishful thinking, but I think recent revelations (aka "phony scandals") have taken the bloom off that stinkwort.

I really don't know how to explain it to you but when you have an election in our system, there are two real choices due to the money spent and party loyalty. Between two candidates, differences are highlighted. This is what happened in 2012; Romney's plans/actions for getting rid of medicare, the ACA, overturning Roe, letting the big 3 go bankrupt were highlighted and people chose Obama. Fear of racism wasn't on the ticket this time.

Nonresponsive, since I was referring to revelations AFTER the election. By the way, do you know of any other Western country that does NOT require voter ID?

 

[candycorn]

By "politics" do you mean that we had to reelect our First Black President, despite his obvious incompetence, in order to avoid being branded as "racist?"

In 2008, you may have had a point. In 2012, Obama was and still is the superior choice to Mitt Romney. I've often said that "white guilt" was Obama's real running mate in 2008.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...te-romney-got-59-of-white-12.html#post6828942

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/269700-what-you-would-have-wanted-7.html#post6576924

And one of my favorite threads of all time:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/227995-hollywood-rides-to-obama-s-rescue-5.html#post5444409

It may be wishful thinking, but I think recent revelations (aka "phony scandals") have taken the bloom off that stinkwort.

I really don't know how to explain it to you but when you have an election in our system, there are two real choices due to the money spent and party loyalty. Between two candidates, differences are highlighted. This is what happened in 2012; Romney's plans/actions for getting rid of medicare, the ACA, overturning Roe, letting the big 3 go bankrupt were highlighted and people chose Obama. Fear of racism wasn't on the ticket this time.

Nonresponsive, since I was referring to revelations AFTER the election. By the way, do you know of any other Western country that does NOT require voter ID?

That is a distinction without a difference; again, yours is a wholly unsophisticated and, frankly, cartoonish view of politics.

I think all nations should require an ID to vote; I sponsor making the Voter Registration Card a picture ID so you only need to show one document to vote.

 

[KevinWestern]

In 2008, you may have had a point. In 2012, Obama was and still is the superior choice to Mitt Romney. I've often said that "white guilt" was Obama's real running mate in 2008.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...te-romney-got-59-of-white-12.html#post6828942

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/269700-what-you-would-have-wanted-7.html#post6576924

And one of my favorite threads of all time:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/227995-hollywood-rides-to-obama-s-rescue-5.html#post5444409



I really don't know how to explain it to you but when you have an election in our system, there are two real choices due to the money spent and party loyalty. Between two candidates, differences are highlighted. This is what happened in 2012; Romney's plans/actions for getting rid of medicare, the ACA, overturning Roe, letting the big 3 go bankrupt were highlighted and people chose Obama. Fear of racism wasn't on the ticket this time.

Nonresponsive, since I was referring to revelations AFTER the election. By the way, do you know of any other Western country that does NOT require voter ID?

That is a distinction without a difference; again, yours is a wholly unsophisticated and, frankly, cartoonish view of politics.

I think all nations should require an ID to vote; I sponsor making the Voter Registration Card a picture ID so you only need to show one document to vote.

Because we don't have a significant voter fraud issue in the US, I think it'd be fair to say that the greatest effect a voter ID law would have would be deterring citizens - who would otherwise be eligible to vote - from voting. And the largest group affected are the poor.

Not a fan of that idea.

 

[jwoodie]

In 2008, you may have had a point. In 2012, Obama was and still is the superior choice to Mitt Romney. I've often said that "white guilt" was Obama's real running mate in 2008.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...te-romney-got-59-of-white-12.html#post6828942

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/269700-what-you-would-have-wanted-7.html#post6576924

And one of my favorite threads of all time:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/227995-hollywood-rides-to-obama-s-rescue-5.html#post5444409



I really don't know how to explain it to you but when you have an election in our system, there are two real choices due to the money spent and party loyalty. Between two candidates, differences are highlighted. This is what happened in 2012; Romney's plans/actions for getting rid of medicare, the ACA, overturning Roe, letting the big 3 go bankrupt were highlighted and people chose Obama. Fear of racism wasn't on the ticket this time.

Nonresponsive, since I was referring to revelations AFTER the election. By the way, do you know of any other Western country that does NOT require voter ID?

That is a distinction without a difference; again, yours is a wholly unsophisticated and, frankly, cartoonish view of politics.

BEFORE and AFTER an election is distinction without a difference? Ever hear of Watergate?

 

[auditor0007]

It is too bad that we can't have a redo of the 2012 election. I think a lot of people would change their minds about who they would prefer for President. Do you think he might have a chance in 2016? He is in excellent health and only six months older than Hillary...

Are you serious?????

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I just hope that the next GOP candidate that wins the presidential election is a woman. This way when anybody suggests that she isn't doing a great job, the republicans can jsut say ,"Hey, you're just a sexist pig who hates women!" Then Fox News and other right wing media can show stories about women being shot by men and we can have a national discussion on how truly sexist America is and how we haven't come that far from the suffragette movement. Even if the woman was shot by another woman, this wouldn't really have to matter for our conservative cause. If the left wing press can turn a registered democrat mexican into a right wing racist (Zimmerman) then Fox can certainly turn a woman into a left wing sexist male. Then Fox can find a story about a male rodeo clown in a female president mask and pretend it's a real story! Meanwhile, Sarah Palin will complain that a man at Walmart refused to show her an "expensive' purse while she was traveling through Switzerland. Anybody who disagrees with me is obviously a woman hating neanderthal. Of course, women who didn't vote for a woman president would obviously be known as Aunt Toms.

 

[BDBoop]

It is too bad that we can't have a redo of the 2012 election. I think a lot of people would change their minds about who they would prefer for President. Do you think he might have a chance in 2016? He is in excellent health and only six months older than Hillary...

Unfounded rumor has it that one of his sons may run. Have ANY of them held office?

 

[jwoodie]

It is too bad that we can't have a redo of the 2012 election. I think a lot of people would change their minds about who they would prefer for President. Do you think he might have a chance in 2016? He is in excellent health and only six months older than Hillary...

Are you serious?????

Check out Obama's approval rating...

 

[Sallow]

Romney will never be President of the United States.

Neither will Rand Paul.

Bank on it.

 

[Mertex]

Romney will never be President of the United States.

Neither will Rand Paul.

Bank on it.

Loser Romney has a higher approval rating than their leading contenders, sad.

 

[BDBoop]

Romney will never be President of the United States.

Neither will Rand Paul.

Bank on it.

Who do you see as a serious Republican contender for the presidency.

 

[JoeB131]

It is too bad that we can't have a redo of the 2012 election. I think a lot of people would change their minds about who they would prefer for President. Do you think he might have a chance in 2016? He is in excellent health and only six months older than Hillary...

No... just no... we don't need any Romney, or Perry, or Santorum, or Gingrich, etc, we don't need ANY RERUNS. We need NEW BLOOD... like CRUZ, or WEST, or the good Dr. CARSON.

And how are those guys going to get people who voted for Bush in 2004 but voted for Obama in 2008 or 2012?

Cruz and West and Dr. Carson would be very good at getting votes of people who would vote for Republicans NO MATTER WHO THE GOP NOMINATES.

I voted for Bush in 2004. I voted for Obama in 2012. I wouldn't vote for any of those jokers.

I might be tempted to vote for Chris Christie if I can get over how he screwed working folks in his state.

 

[BDBoop]

Yup. Voted for Bush 2000 and 2004, voted against Clinton both times - don't even remember who was running, just voted against Clinton. Voted for Obama twice. I know people think I'm a diehard Dem, but with the Pubs off the right cliff, I have no way of measuring where I actually land.

 

[Grandma]

You know, if the independents, centrists, and switch-voters all got together it's likely that a 3rd, centrist/moderate party could replace the republican party.

 

[candycorn]

It is too bad that we can't have a redo of the 2012 election. I think a lot of people would change their minds about who they would prefer for President. Do you think he might have a chance in 2016? He is in excellent health and only six months older than Hillary...

No... just no... we don't need any Romney, or Perry, or Santorum, or Gingrich, etc, we don't need ANY RERUNS. We need NEW BLOOD... like CRUZ, or WEST, or the good Dr. CARSON.

And how are those guys going to get people who voted for Bush in 2004 but voted for Obama in 2008 or 2012?

Cruz and West and Dr. Carson would be very good at getting votes of people who would vote for Republicans NO MATTER WHO THE GOP NOMINATES.

I voted for Bush in 2004. I voted for Obama in 2012. I wouldn't vote for any of those jokers.

I might be tempted to vote for Chris Christie if I can get over how he screwed working folks in his state.

I don't think the Dems would get lucky enough to have any of those 3 nominated. It would be the easiest victory of our lifetimes if they did.

 

[candycorn]

Romney will never be President of the United States.

Neither will Rand Paul.

Bank on it.

Who do you see as a serious Republican contender for the presidency.

Santorum; Won 11 states in both the north and the south. He has a good organization in Iowa and New Hampshire which is going to be crucial this year especially (see below). Too goofy to win but that may not stop the GOP from electing him with a split party; he may be the Christian zealot that the rest of the party can get behind.

Chris Christie; Probably the best candidate but has huge problems with the calendar. He won't win in Iowa, New Hampshire will be too close to make any victory of his count for much. South Carolina comes next and he may as well not even campaign down there. Then comes Florida where he is likely to run into Rubio, Jeb Bush or both. He won't win vs a "favorite son" vote. So he lost (at least) 3 of the first 4 contests, will have no momentum, little money, and, more importantly, no media attention.

Jeb Bush;

Watch for Bush...
Good in All Time Zones-Check
Heavyweight Credentials-Check
Money-Check
Name Recognition-Check
Wants the job....wants the job....wants the job???? Dunno.

Scott Walker;
Dark Horse but will likely be angling for a VP nomination. Swing state will help the top of the ticket. He will likely get into it and he just may become a consensus candidate.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It is too bad that we can't have a redo of the 2012 election. I think a lot of people would change their minds about who they would prefer for President. Do you think he might have a chance in 2016? He is in excellent health and only six months older than Hillary...

Are you serious?????

Check out Obama's approval rating...

He's not running.