If Romney get the gop nomination

[Toro]

You neglected to point out that the worst loss to a sitting Democrat was Goldwater's loss in 1964.

Goldwater, the Conservative icon. Goldwater, for all practical purposes, the father of the Reagan conservative generation.

ZOMFG!

A "you forgot to mention" post.

Well you forgot to mention that Reagan crushed Crater and put such a beat down in his re-election that history has scrubbed those names from history.

They are only listed as; Some old white dude and a chick, I think.

Reagan is dead. Santorum is no Reagan
That leaves you with Romney

Bottom line is the credible Republicans sat this election out because they knew they couldn't beat Obama

Sure they could have. And sure they can.

Obama is more vulnerable than Bush was in 92.

 

[Papageorgio]

This is a worn out conservative talking point. That Republicans lose because they're not conservative enough.

It’s also a lame republican excuse.

And you forgot to mention that Reagan would be considered a RINO today.

If republicans were serious about winning elections and responsible governance, they’d embrace social liberalism, retain fiscal conservatism, and kick the radical right, social conservatives, and Christian fundamentalists to the curb.

A lib telling conservatives what they need to do, classic.

 

[kaz]

I intend to support Romney over Obama, dipshit.

Well, for once we agree on something. The last Republican I voted for was HW in 88. At this point the Republican nominee has always been known and I've already known I'm voting for a third party/independent. This time technically it's not known, and I know I'm voting Republican. Sadly not because the Republicans have gotten better though, but the Democrats have actually gotten worse. I'm actually quite impressed by that, I didn't think it could be done.

In practicality though I agree it's Romney. It's going to take months for him to make it official. But you are wrong that he should not pick someone to appeal to small government tea partiers. That they sat at home is why we have a Marxist in the white house. Bachmann would be an excellent pick. There are some other good ones like Rubio and Ryan. Rubio had the quote of the 2010 elections when he said to the Republicans that if they think this election was about the country endorsing them, they are very much mistaken. Another Romney/Dole/McCain/W/HW clone for VP is definitely not what Romney needs. He needs someone who can make us small government types feel heard.

 

[rightwinger]

This is a worn out conservative talking point. That Republicans lose because they're not conservative enough.

It’s also a lame republican excuse.

And you forgot to mention that Reagan would be considered a RINO today.

If republicans were serious about winning elections and responsible governance, they’d embrace social liberalism, retain fiscal conservatism, and kick the radical right, social conservatives, and Christian fundamentalists to the curb.

A lib telling conservatives what they need to do, classic.

Social Conservatives are killing the Republicans......scares most people

Republicans need to run on strict fiscal restraint, balanced budget and leave peoples bedrooms alone

 

[Toro]

I intend to support Romney over Obama, dipshit.

Well, for once we agree on something. The last Republican I voted for was HW in 88. At this point the Republican nominee has always been known and I've already known I'm voting for a third party/independent. This time technically it's not known, and I know I'm voting Republican. Sadly not because the Republicans have gotten better though, but the Democrats have actually gotten worse. I'm actually quite impressed by that, I didn't think it could be done.

In practicality though I agree it's Romney. It's going to take months for him to make it official. But you are wrong that he should not pick someone to appeal to small government tea partiers. That they sat at home is why we have a Marxist in the white house. Bachmann would be an excellent pick. There are some other good ones like Rubio and Ryan. Rubio had the quote of the 2010 elections when he said to the Republicans that if they think this election was about the country endorsing them, they are very much mistaken. Another Romney/Dole/McCain/W/HW clone for VP is definitely not what Romney needs. He needs someone who can make us small government types feel heard.

I didn't say the Republicans shouldn't pick someone to appeal to small government Tea Partiers. I said that had they picked any of the other candidates on offer, they also would have "guaranteed" an Obama victory.

I'm pretty sure there are stronger Republican candidates out there but they chose not to run.

 

[ecinicola]

There will be some fraud and crooked things happening in this next election. Obama is desperate and he has been taking big money from crooked donors. I do believe strongly tho, that obama will not be re elected. People are having major harships with the things obama is doing and he has lost alot of support due to it. Obama has been a failure to us all for the last 4 yrs. Why would anyone vote for that again? Not me!!!!!

 

[rightwinger]

ZOMFG!

A "you forgot to mention" post.

Well you forgot to mention that Reagan crushed Crater and put such a beat down in his re-election that history has scrubbed those names from history.

They are only listed as; Some old white dude and a chick, I think.

Reagan is dead. Santorum is no Reagan
That leaves you with Romney

Bottom line is the credible Republicans sat this election out because they knew they couldn't beat Obama

Sure they could have. And sure they can.

Obama is more vulnerable than Bush was in 92.

Bush ran against a charismatic candidate in Clinton. He also had an economy headed to a recession

Romney is as dull as your misfit cousin. The stock market is booming and employment is rising

I see Obama taking eight out of the ten swing states and pulling over 325 electoral votes

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Social Conservatives are killing the Republicans......scares most people

Republicans need to run on strict fiscal restraint, balanced budget and leave peoples bedrooms alone.

True but the problem is republicans are intimidated by the radical right and lack the courage to confront them.

 

[Toro]

Reagan is dead. Santorum is no Reagan
That leaves you with Romney

Bottom line is the credible Republicans sat this election out because they knew they couldn't beat Obama

Sure they could have. And sure they can.

Obama is more vulnerable than Bush was in 92.

Bush ran against a charismatic candidate in Clinton. He also had an economy headed to a recession

Romney is as dull as your misfit cousin. The stock market is booming and employment is rising

I see Obama taking eight out of the ten swing states and pulling over 325 electoral votes

- Unemployment is over 8%. No President has been re-elected with such high unemployment in the last 75 years. Employment growth is the weakest on record. There is some evidence that the economy may weaken going into the Fall.

- The vast majority of people have lost money in stocks over the past decade, even with a rising stock market. The average individual does not feel that they've benefited from a rising stock market because most have been out since the Financial Crisis.

- Obama has been a weak leader. Absolutely nothing has been done since the 2010 elections. In the meantime, the US was downgraded and he has not passed a budget in three years.

- "Hope and change" has merely been an empty slogan. Washington is even more poisonous and divided than it was when he was elected.

- The right track / wrong track poll has consistently been in the -40% to -50% range, the worst on record. In the past, pollsters have cited this as being the best predictor for the governing party's re-election chances.

I don't make predictions on what is going to happen, but Obama is extremely vulnerable. Whether or not the Republicans take advantage is another question.

 

[rightwinger]

Sure they could have. And sure they can.

Obama is more vulnerable than Bush was in 92.

Bush ran against a charismatic candidate in Clinton. He also had an economy headed to a recession

Romney is as dull as your misfit cousin. The stock market is booming and employment is rising

I see Obama taking eight out of the ten swing states and pulling over 325 electoral votes

- Unemployment is over 8%. No President has been re-elected with such high unemployment in the last 75 years. Employment growth is the weakest on record. There is some evidence that the economy may weaken going into the Fall.

- The vast majority of people have lost money in stocks over the past decade, even with a rising stock market. The average individual does not feel that they've benefited from a rising stock market because most have been out since the Financial Crisis.

- Obama has been a weak leader. Absolutely nothing has been done since the 2010 elections. In the meantime, the US was downgraded and he has not passed a budget in three years.

- "Hope and change" has merely been an empty slogan. Washington is even more poisonous and divided than it was when he was elected.

- The right track / wrong track poll has consistently been in the -40% to -50% range, the worst on record. In the past, pollsters have cited this as being the best predictor for the governing party's re-election chances.

I don't make predictions on what is going to happen, but Obama is extremely vulnerable. Whether or not the Republicans take advantage is another question.

People do not "like" Romney

His own party is holding their nose over their candidate, he is awkward and uninspiring

Think Dukakis

Obama will pull over 325 electoral votes

 

[Toro]

People do not "like" Romney

His own party is holding their nose over their candidate, he is awkward and uninspiring

Think Dukakis

Obama will pull over 325 electoral votes

Maybe. I don't know. Romney may be a weak candidate. We shall see. But Obama is vulnerable, and a strong Republican candidate could beat him. Obama has been a bust as President.

 

[Caroljo]

Obama wins.


No sitting dem has been beaten by a gop moderate, and Mitt is as moderate as milk toast.

Only man to ever beat a sitting dem?

Reagan.

An 80's conservative.


So all you people out there telling us we need to back Mitt so we can unite under his waffle.


Grats, you are guaranteeing that Obama wins.

I didn't read all the posts...so i'm sorry if i'm repeating something already said.

But there's been other 1st with Obama. The first downgrade of US credit from AAA to AA. And now possibly a 1st for the SCOTUS to strike down Obamacare. Romney beating Obama wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

[JoeB131]

i had read a few years ago that romney has jebb bush in mind for vp....will that help or hurt?

the only standard for for a VP pick is "don't **** it up".

A VP pick has not really helped a ticket since 1960.

VP tickets only really make a difference when the candidate screws it up, like McGovern picking Egleton or McCain picking Palin.

My guess is that Romney will pick someone who is competent, safe and duller than he is. That's about the best way he could not screw it up.

 

[Mac1958]

My guess is that Romney will pick someone who is competent, safe and duller than he is. That's about the best way he could not screw it up.

Yeah, I'm seeing Portman's name pop up more and more. He's one of the few folks out there who would make Romney look dynamic by comparison, and I think he checks a lot of boxes for the Tea Party faction.


.

 

[JoeB131]

Obama wins.


No sitting dem has been beaten by a gop moderate, and Mitt is as moderate as milk toast.

Only man to ever beat a sitting dem?

Reagan.

An 80's conservative.


So all you people out there telling us we need to back Mitt so we can unite under his waffle.


Grats, you are guaranteeing that Obama wins.

And nominating Santorum / Bachmann / Gingrich / Cain / Trump / whomever else was the Tea Party darling would also "guarantee" an Obama win.

The fact that Reagan did it once - count 'em, one time - does not mean that it is continuously repeatable. It's a fantasy of blinkered ideologues.

Actually, let's look at that.

Nixon ran as a conservative speaking for the "Silent Majority" who were disgusted by Hippies. He won- Twice.

Reagan ran as a conservative speaking for traditional values. He won twice. By landslides.

Bush-41 ran as a conservative and won. Then he broke all his promises and raised taxes and expanded government, and lost.

Bush-43 ran as a conservative. Well we can debate whether he won the first time, but he won the second time.

Now, if you run as just the kind of "conservative" you are, the one who thinks the biggest problem in America is that the rich don't get to **** over the working man enough while committing economic treason, and don't make me talk about social conservative stuff, those bible thumpers are all a bunch of weirdos. Well, lets see what you get.

Jerry Ford Lost.
Bob Dole Lost
John McCain Lost
Mitt Romney will Lose.

 

[JoeB131]

Shhhh... Romney is electable.

That's the mantra.

Here's some nice Koolaid.

Actually, I think the GOP has bigger problems than who the nominee is this time. They need to stop alienating hispanics and working folks and women. And they can win them over without comprimising conservative ideals. But they need to change the rhetoric and the tone.

As soon as I saw the thread, I thought I wonder how long it took Joe the Mormon bigot to post in the thread. You were on your game my man, second post.

Didn't talk about Mormons and barely talked about Romney, but that's okay, man.

Please allow my criticism of the LDS cult to allow you to ignore all my other criticisms of Romney and the way the GOP is ******* it up in general.

Hey, did you hear Romney is losing Hispanics 71-14 and Women under 50 60-30?

Hey, yeah, I guess all them women and Latinos are "anti-Mormon" bigots, too, because they don't realize how awesome Romney is..

 

[Toro]

Obama wins.


No sitting dem has been beaten by a gop moderate, and Mitt is as moderate as milk toast.

Only man to ever beat a sitting dem?

Reagan.

An 80's conservative.


So all you people out there telling us we need to back Mitt so we can unite under his waffle.


Grats, you are guaranteeing that Obama wins.

And nominating Santorum / Bachmann / Gingrich / Cain / Trump / whomever else was the Tea Party darling would also "guarantee" an Obama win.

The fact that Reagan did it once - count 'em, one time - does not mean that it is continuously repeatable. It's a fantasy of blinkered ideologues.

Actually, let's look at that.

Nixon ran as a conservative speaking for the "Silent Majority" who were disgusted by Hippies. He won- Twice.

Reagan ran as a conservative speaking for traditional values. He won twice. By landslides.

Bush-41 ran as a conservative and won. Then he broke all his promises and raised taxes and expanded government, and lost.

Bush-43 ran as a conservative. Well we can debate whether he won the first time, but he won the second time.

Now, if you run as just the kind of "conservative" you are, the one who thinks the biggest problem in America is that the rich don't get to **** over the working man enough while committing economic treason, and don't make me talk about social conservative stuff, those bible thumpers are all a bunch of weirdos. Well, lets see what you get.

Jerry Ford Lost.
Bob Dole Lost
John McCain Lost
Mitt Romney will Lose.

Convenient historical revisionism. Conservative - and those who claim to be conservatives like you, uby - will always say that the nominee lost because they weren't conservative enough. Always.

Let's look again.

Goldwater 64 - the most conservative of all the candidates in generations then and since, was crushed.

Nixon 68 - in a time of strife because of an unpopular war so great the sitting President chose not to run, Nixon promised to end the war and won. Also, civil strife in the South had damaged the Democrats. His election was as much about the Democrats as the himself.

Nixon 72 - Nixon hardly governed as a conservative. The Democrats nominated the most liberal of all the candidates then and since.

Ford 76 - Ford pardoned Nixon, the public was disgusted by Watergate, inflation was rising and there was an oil embargo and gas lines.

Reagan 80, 84 - Ran as a conservative and won. Proceeded to raise taxes 11 times and gave us the biggest deficits in our history up until that time. Times were good but he governed less from the right than conservatives will admit. A better economy lead to his election.

Bush 88 - Ran on a "kinder, gentler America." Won. Raised taxes. Just like Reagan did, only 10 fewer times than Reagan.

Bush 92 - Ran as a conservative. "Read my lips, no new taxes." Lost. Stagnant economy lead to his defeat. "It's the economy, stupid."

Dole 96 - Clinton benefited from the same dynamic as Reagan did in 84, an expanding and improving economy. Co-opted much of Gingrich's platform.

Bush 00 - "A compassionate conservative." Promised to cut taxes but also promised to improve education, focusing on a traditional soft Democrat issue. Plus, Gore was an awful candidate.

Bush 04 - Oversaw one of the biggest expansions of government since WWII. Cut taxes but increased nondefense, nondiscretionary spending as fast as anyone since LBJ. Oversaw the increase of government intrusion in Americans' lives through security surveillance. Invaded a country. Medicare Part D. Torture. If conservative means "big government," then Bush sure was a conservative in his first four year term.

McCain 08 - Worst economy since the Depression. Enough said. Weariness of war was also a big part.

Conservatives will always attribute their victories to "being conservative" and their losses to "not being conservative enough." This is the mechanism of all partisans and ideologues. It's unobjective.

Especially when it comes from a hater.

 

[Crackerjack]

i had read a few years ago that romney has jebb bush in mind for vp....will that help or hurt?

It would help out more than any bullet-proof vest or armored limousine could if Romney were to be elected.

 

[Two Thumbs]

You neglected to point out that the worst loss to a sitting Democrat was Goldwater's loss in 1964.

Goldwater, the Conservative icon. Goldwater, for all practical purposes, the father of the Reagan conservative generation.

ZOMFG!

A "you forgot to mention" post.

Well you forgot to mention that Reagan crushed Crater and put such a beat down in his re-election that history has scrubbed those names from history.

They are only listed as; Some old white dude and a chick, I think.

Reagan is dead. Santorum is no Reagan
That leaves you with Romney

Bottom line is the credible Republicans sat this election out because they knew they couldn't beat Obama

That's almost right.

Conservatives got no air time except for Cain.

There were plenty that could beat obama, but the media weeded out eveyone that wasn't a moderate or a RR.

 

[Zander]

Sorry, I call bullshit. Every election is different. Looking at past elections may be fun for pedants, but it is in no way an indicator of future results. .......