- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #21
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Romney's return to public life stokes speculation about potential 2016 run
- Thread starter BDBoop
- Start date
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #22
An atheist's opinion of hatred is worth a fart, nothing more.
I think Romney was a terrible candidate. He was tone deaf, meaning he had no clue what life was like outside his comfort zone and could not relate to anyone in the 47% zone.
He was the worst candidate since Kerry who had the same problem.
He will go nowhere. Nobody gives a rat's ass what this clown thinks except for a small percentage of the electorate that isn't enough to get him elected.
Plus, he lied constantly during his campaign.
Mitt Kerry a flip flopper's dream. Just thought they were so much a like, it makes me wonder, what's exactly in the water in Mass.?
Mojo2
Gold Member
- Oct 28, 2013
- 6,210
- 1,026
- 190
Of COURSE you would.
You will always take pride in making the wrong choice.
I'm sorry, is there a reason you're taking a shot at me.
Uh, it's what I do and you see it as a quirky form of term of endearment?
Mojo2
Gold Member
- Oct 28, 2013
- 6,210
- 1,026
- 190
I think Romney was a terrible candidate. He was tone deaf, meaning he had no clue what life was like outside his comfort zone and could not relate to anyone in the 47% zone.
He was the worst candidate since Kerry who had the same problem.
He will go nowhere. Nobody gives a rat's ass what this clown thinks except for a small percentage of the electorate that isn't enough to get him elected.
Plus, he lied constantly during his campaign.
Mitt Kerry a flip flopper's dream. Just thought they were so much a like, it makes me wonder, what's exactly in the water in Mass.?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U7_iNIgGjc&list=PLJdYRfQuif3Jsw8cPKvZGhRhu_YWWJBvo&feature=share&index=11]Blah Blah Blah - YouTube[/ame]
BDBoop
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #26
Of COURSE you would.
You will always take pride in making the wrong choice.
I'm sorry, is there a reason you're taking a shot at me.
Uh, it's what I do and you see it as a quirky form of term of endearment?
No, I don't. So - that's your schtick? Nothing regarding the subject just take a shot? Yeah, I'll go ahead and take you seriously.
Statistikhengst
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #27
Well, when you analyze Romney's campaign, he did have a pretty decent team and his team did try to catch up on the internet savvyness that the Obama campaign brought to campaigning in 2008 and improved upon in 2012.
I think there are some pretty obvious factors that killed his chances, and they are pretty easy to google/bing and research on your own, for there is just a slew of material out there.
1.) Romney was the first GOP candidate maybe ever to do so poorly in GOP nomination polling over such a long, long time. On the day after the 2008 election (no shit, the day after) Rasmussen already polled a potential field of GOP candidates for 2012, and Palin came out way on top (not a surprise, considering there had just been an election) and Romney was under 20%. In fact, in all of 2010, all of 2011 and the first fourth months of 2012 (30 straight months, from November 2008 to the end of April 2012), Romney was unable to break over a composite of 24% in GOP polling. In other words, even the GOP base was not sold on him, not by a long shot. Now, this did not keep the base from coming out to vote for him, for as I wrote earlier, he currently is in the record books as the second highest GOP prez vote getter, behind Bush from 2004 and also only one of three gentlemen (Obama - twice, Bush - once, Romney - once) to break the 60 million vote mark, but there can be no doubt that even among the faithful, his support was mostly lukewarm.
2.) The Evangelical Right was firmly against him until Hagee arranged a meeting in Texas and they decided to bite the bullet and retract all the anti-mormon stuff they had been pedaling for two straight years, seeing that it was more than likely that Romney was going to become the nominee. In other words, they throw their religious convictions overboard to try to ensure "anybody but Obama".
3.) And this is by far the most important point - and an argument I made almost every day of 2012: all the crazy stuff Romney said in order to feed red meat to the extreme Right of his party ended up being poison for him in November. From the CPAC 2012 where Romney called himself "severely Conservative" to jeers and laughs from Conservatives, to the crazy-assed statement about "self-deportation" and comments about his latino help at his home during the debates, just to name a few, Romney made a pact with Mephistopheles in order to (finally) get the GOP nomination and all that stuff came back to haunt him come November - EXACTLY as I had been predicting all through 2012.
4.) It is my opinon that his choice of Paul Ryan was a mistake, but he seemed to be very happy with it. I say this for a number of reasons: it's been a long, long time since a member of the HOR was either a Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate and whether you agree with the impression or not, for good or for bad, the HOR is considered the "lower" house of Congress. Second, Ryan's budget plan did not go well with a lot of people, and they remembered it in November.
5.) 47%. Yes, the video probably hurt Romney some, but more likely than not, it cemented the views of many who had been planning to vote for Obama but were still "swayable".
6.) In composite polling in Ohio - THE bellwether for the nation, through all of 2010, 2011 and 2012, Romney never pulled ahead of Obama, not even once. In fact, the bi-weekly and monthly averages came out invariably to be between +3 and +4 for Obama in the Buckeye State. After the "47%" incident, polling on Ohio by The Columbus Dispatch Poll (which has never missed the winner but once - 2004, where it called a statistical tie Bush/Kerry) showed Obama had jumped to +9 and the Obama campaign decided to release an internal poll of Ohio showing the same. But then came debate 1 and Obama looked and acted like a zombie and I believe that a lot of the damage caused by "47%" was negated by the President's poor performance in the first debate. However, even after that first debate, Obama still never lost his lead in Ohio in composite polling, not even once. This is probably why he injected the deceptive Jeep-Ad into the end of the campaign, but to no avail.
7.) I wrote earlier that the Romney team worked hard to catch up on the Obama internet savvyness, but on election day, the newly created voter recognition software for the Romney team, designed to get last-minute voters to the polls, crashed.
8.) $$$. Romney had to burn through money to first win the primaries, while President Obama did not. President Obama enjoyed the luxury that most incumbent presidents enjoy, namely being able to fill the campaign warchest early and without huge stress. This allowed President Obama to cover more media markets earlier. President Bush used this same tactic in 2004, ditto President Clinton in 1996, ditto President Reagan in 1984. So, this is not a new phenomenon. An incumbent DOES have a home-field advantage that a challenger will find hard to compete with.
Now, Thomas Dewey, the first presidential candidate born in the 20th century (1902), ran for president 3 times. He was a candidate in 1940, at the age of 37, but moved his delegates to Willkie as it looked like the convention would be really, really locked for a good long time. In 1944, he became the GOP standard bearer and lost to FDR in his fourth election. Four years later, the GOP again selected Dewey, who still lost to Truman by more than 4 points. So, 1948 is the last time that the GOP put up a nominee who had already lost once for a second try back-to-back. Then, in 1952 and 1956, the Democrats did the same with Adlai Stevenson. Yes, Nixon also ran for President 3 times, but there was an 8 year stretch between his first nomination and his second. So, as of 2016 it will have been sixty years since a nominee of either party who lost once was nominated again, back to back. I think it is EXTREMELY unlikely that we will ever see a losing nominee get a second chance. There are just too many other people out there with power and influence who will also want a crack at the top-spot.
Also, the GOP has a strong tradition of nominating the guy who came in 2nd the time before. Now, Romney and Huckabee were really the 2nd placers in 2008. In 2012, the second place guy ended up being Rick Santorum. So, wait and see. Santorum, who ran on a very small budget, has made no real overtures about 2016.
That is my view of Romney: a pretty decent candidate with a pretty decent team, lots of flaws in his primary technique, flaws that killed his general campaign, a bad choice of VP nominee, and lots of strategic blunders on the campaign trail. And yes, he lied alot. Romney never came off as genuine. Most members of my family are Republicans, and none of them found him to be "real".
I think there are some pretty obvious factors that killed his chances, and they are pretty easy to google/bing and research on your own, for there is just a slew of material out there.
1.) Romney was the first GOP candidate maybe ever to do so poorly in GOP nomination polling over such a long, long time. On the day after the 2008 election (no shit, the day after) Rasmussen already polled a potential field of GOP candidates for 2012, and Palin came out way on top (not a surprise, considering there had just been an election) and Romney was under 20%. In fact, in all of 2010, all of 2011 and the first fourth months of 2012 (30 straight months, from November 2008 to the end of April 2012), Romney was unable to break over a composite of 24% in GOP polling. In other words, even the GOP base was not sold on him, not by a long shot. Now, this did not keep the base from coming out to vote for him, for as I wrote earlier, he currently is in the record books as the second highest GOP prez vote getter, behind Bush from 2004 and also only one of three gentlemen (Obama - twice, Bush - once, Romney - once) to break the 60 million vote mark, but there can be no doubt that even among the faithful, his support was mostly lukewarm.
2.) The Evangelical Right was firmly against him until Hagee arranged a meeting in Texas and they decided to bite the bullet and retract all the anti-mormon stuff they had been pedaling for two straight years, seeing that it was more than likely that Romney was going to become the nominee. In other words, they throw their religious convictions overboard to try to ensure "anybody but Obama".
3.) And this is by far the most important point - and an argument I made almost every day of 2012: all the crazy stuff Romney said in order to feed red meat to the extreme Right of his party ended up being poison for him in November. From the CPAC 2012 where Romney called himself "severely Conservative" to jeers and laughs from Conservatives, to the crazy-assed statement about "self-deportation" and comments about his latino help at his home during the debates, just to name a few, Romney made a pact with Mephistopheles in order to (finally) get the GOP nomination and all that stuff came back to haunt him come November - EXACTLY as I had been predicting all through 2012.
4.) It is my opinon that his choice of Paul Ryan was a mistake, but he seemed to be very happy with it. I say this for a number of reasons: it's been a long, long time since a member of the HOR was either a Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate and whether you agree with the impression or not, for good or for bad, the HOR is considered the "lower" house of Congress. Second, Ryan's budget plan did not go well with a lot of people, and they remembered it in November.
5.) 47%. Yes, the video probably hurt Romney some, but more likely than not, it cemented the views of many who had been planning to vote for Obama but were still "swayable".
6.) In composite polling in Ohio - THE bellwether for the nation, through all of 2010, 2011 and 2012, Romney never pulled ahead of Obama, not even once. In fact, the bi-weekly and monthly averages came out invariably to be between +3 and +4 for Obama in the Buckeye State. After the "47%" incident, polling on Ohio by The Columbus Dispatch Poll (which has never missed the winner but once - 2004, where it called a statistical tie Bush/Kerry) showed Obama had jumped to +9 and the Obama campaign decided to release an internal poll of Ohio showing the same. But then came debate 1 and Obama looked and acted like a zombie and I believe that a lot of the damage caused by "47%" was negated by the President's poor performance in the first debate. However, even after that first debate, Obama still never lost his lead in Ohio in composite polling, not even once. This is probably why he injected the deceptive Jeep-Ad into the end of the campaign, but to no avail.
7.) I wrote earlier that the Romney team worked hard to catch up on the Obama internet savvyness, but on election day, the newly created voter recognition software for the Romney team, designed to get last-minute voters to the polls, crashed.
8.) $$$. Romney had to burn through money to first win the primaries, while President Obama did not. President Obama enjoyed the luxury that most incumbent presidents enjoy, namely being able to fill the campaign warchest early and without huge stress. This allowed President Obama to cover more media markets earlier. President Bush used this same tactic in 2004, ditto President Clinton in 1996, ditto President Reagan in 1984. So, this is not a new phenomenon. An incumbent DOES have a home-field advantage that a challenger will find hard to compete with.
Now, Thomas Dewey, the first presidential candidate born in the 20th century (1902), ran for president 3 times. He was a candidate in 1940, at the age of 37, but moved his delegates to Willkie as it looked like the convention would be really, really locked for a good long time. In 1944, he became the GOP standard bearer and lost to FDR in his fourth election. Four years later, the GOP again selected Dewey, who still lost to Truman by more than 4 points. So, 1948 is the last time that the GOP put up a nominee who had already lost once for a second try back-to-back. Then, in 1952 and 1956, the Democrats did the same with Adlai Stevenson. Yes, Nixon also ran for President 3 times, but there was an 8 year stretch between his first nomination and his second. So, as of 2016 it will have been sixty years since a nominee of either party who lost once was nominated again, back to back. I think it is EXTREMELY unlikely that we will ever see a losing nominee get a second chance. There are just too many other people out there with power and influence who will also want a crack at the top-spot.
Also, the GOP has a strong tradition of nominating the guy who came in 2nd the time before. Now, Romney and Huckabee were really the 2nd placers in 2008. In 2012, the second place guy ended up being Rick Santorum. So, wait and see. Santorum, who ran on a very small budget, has made no real overtures about 2016.
That is my view of Romney: a pretty decent candidate with a pretty decent team, lots of flaws in his primary technique, flaws that killed his general campaign, a bad choice of VP nominee, and lots of strategic blunders on the campaign trail. And yes, he lied alot. Romney never came off as genuine. Most members of my family are Republicans, and none of them found him to be "real".
Last edited:
Super_Lantern
VIP Member
- Jun 2, 2013
- 957
- 141
- 80
Rumors are spreading that Romney is eying a 2016 run. I think the "rumors" are actually wishful thinking by Romney fans, some of GOP base, and people from the left trying to build up talk of a 2016 Romney run to see what the public's reaction is
What do you think? If losers Hillary and Biden can run again why can't Mitt? How is Rand Paul any less moderate than Mitt on social issues? How is Ted Cruz's resume stronger than Romney's for president? Do we want/need another Bush?
Serious question. Out of the 2016 GOP potentials who is a better candidate than Romney and why? Time is proving Romney right on a lot of things and the public's view of Romney has been steadily increasing since he lost
If he runs I think he'll be a dark horse candidate who rises when it looks like we're in for a Bush/Clinton election. America deserves better than two families having presidential dynasties
What do you think? If losers Hillary and Biden can run again why can't Mitt? How is Rand Paul any less moderate than Mitt on social issues? How is Ted Cruz's resume stronger than Romney's for president? Do we want/need another Bush?
Serious question. Out of the 2016 GOP potentials who is a better candidate than Romney and why? Time is proving Romney right on a lot of things and the public's view of Romney has been steadily increasing since he lost
If he runs I think he'll be a dark horse candidate who rises when it looks like we're in for a Bush/Clinton election. America deserves better than two families having presidential dynasties
Last edited:
If he does, maybe this time he'll have a spine to boot.
He is not going to run.
aside from the fact that he was a terrible candidate who couldn't relate to people, his wife would never allow it.... running for president is "hard".
not gonna happen.
The Mormons just want their "moment", so he might.
BUt frankly, the GOP had to be dragged kicking and screaming to back him in 2012, and there are much better picks in 2016.
BUt frankly, the GOP had to be dragged kicking and screaming to back him in 2012, and there are much better picks in 2016.
AvgGuyIA
Gold Member
. You get one chance to be the nomination of the Party.He is not going to run.
. You get one chance to be the nomination of the Party.He is not going to run.
Well, that's not true. Dewey was nominated twice, Stevenson was nominated twice, Nixon was nominated twice.
BUt the GOP can do better than a Weird Mormon Robot.
If Romney does run it will be another chance for me to vote third party in 2016.
.
I really think this will be the year of the Tea Party-approved GOP candidate.
I can't imagine a Jeb or a Christie or a Romney making it through the gauntlet this time around.
Full disclosure, I'm terrible at political predictions.
.
I really think this will be the year of the Tea Party-approved GOP candidate.
I can't imagine a Jeb or a Christie or a Romney making it through the gauntlet this time around.
Full disclosure, I'm terrible at political predictions.
.
I think Romney was a terrible candidate. He was tone deaf, meaning he had no clue what life was like outside his comfort zone and could not relate to anyone in the 47% zone.
He was the worst candidate since Kerry who had the same problem.
He will go nowhere. Nobody gives a rat's ass what this clown thinks except for a small percentage of the electorate that isn't enough to get him elected.
Plus, he lied constantly during his campaign.
Mitt Kerry a flip flopper's dream. Just thought they were so much a like, it makes me wonder, what's exactly in the water in Mass.?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U7_iNIgGjc&list=PLJdYRfQuif3Jsw8cPKvZGhRhu_YWWJBvo&feature=share&index=11]Blah Blah Blah - YouTube[/ame]
So that's why you listen to Rush, "You Can't Handle the Truth"!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo]A Few Good Man "You Can't Handle the Truth" - YouTube[/ame]
Why not Herman Cain too? I think I saw Perry is gonna go for the brass ring again too. Newt's probably got free time, and Adelson's got the money. And Bachmann, now that was a treat. Santorum .... gays are a problem still.
Rumors are spreading that Romney is eying a 2016 run. I think the "rumors" are actually wishful thinking by Romney fans, some of GOP base, and people from the left trying to build up talk of a 2016 Romney run to see what the public's reaction is
What do you think? If losers Hillary and Biden can run again why can't Mitt? How is Rand Paul any less moderate than Mitt on social issues? How is Ted Cruz's resume stronger than Romney's for president? Do we want/need another Bush?
Serious question. Out of the 2016 GOP potentials who is a better candidate than Romney and why? Time is proving Romney right on a lot of things and the public's view of Romney has been steadily increasing since he lost
If he runs I think he'll be a dark horse candidate who rises when it looks like we're in for a Bush/Clinton election. America deserves better than two families having presidential dynasties
She's not running but Condi Rice towers above Romney in both gravitas, and experience. Head of the NSC, former SoS. Revered both at home and abroad and consistent on policies even though they are wildly unpopular. Plus, she knows when to shut up.
Romney can't be trusted and 2012 proved, if nothing else, that.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 630
- Views
- 25K
- Replies
- 132
- Views
- 16K
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 426
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 54
- Replies
- 78
- Views
- 348
- Replies
- 139
- Views
- 397
- Replies
- 74
- Views
- 645
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8065
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 470
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-