Mitt Romney Is the 2016 Republican Front-Runner

[TheGreatGatsby]

Mitt Romney Is the 2016 Republican Front-Runner

Three time loser.... cons beat that dead horse, again.

Dems are scared of Romney at the end of the day....

 

[Nyvin]

mitt romney is the 2016 republican front-runner

three time loser.... Cons beat that dead horse, again.

dems are scared of romney at the end of the day....

lol

 

[Indeependent]

Mitt Romney Is the 2016 Republican Front-Runner

Three time loser.... cons beat that dead horse, again.

Dems are scared of Romney at the end of the day....

It's his pants.

 

[hunarcy]

I'm of the belief that the red state/blue state divide has become so entrenched that it's pretty darn difficult for any Republican to win the White House. The scores pretty much start at what? 243 Dem, 206 GOP? That's 27 short for the Dems to win the whole thing. 27 is fewer then what Florida has, or fewer then Ohio and Virginia together.

There just aren't many paths to the white house for the GOP nowadays, especially with Virginia trending blue. It's only going to get worse going forward with minority voters.

That may have been true if Obama had been a bit more competent. It may be too late for them now.

Isn't that what was said in 2012?

Not by me

 

[Sallow]

bolded

Those are very true.

it is true that those are dem/lib talking points. Factually they are all lies. that has been proven many times on this forum and other places.

but we get it, shallow, its what you guys do best.

Fact isn't fairy tales..guy.

You can make up your own myths. But facts are facts.

 

[freedombecki]

Lol.That's all.

S.e.r.i.u.s-ly?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Mitt Romney Is the 2016 Republican Front-Runner

Three time loser.... cons beat that dead horse, again.

Much like losers beat what should be dead threads....

 

[Synthaholic]

Id have no problem with Romney. If i did I wouldn't have voted for him the last two times.

You Mormon cultists stick together. Of course you will follow your Bishop Romney.

 

[Synthaholic]

He has less of a chance of winning this time than he did last time, regardless of what some pointless, far too early poll says.

He can't change his spots. He's a moderate, so he didn't have, and he won't have, the support of conservatives. Without that NO republican will win the white house.

The republicans want to see how fast they can hand the white house to another dem, run another moderate.

Republicans need to get away from this running prior losers bit. They need to wise up and run a fresh face that's a true conservative. The white house would be guaranteed.

As usual you have it completely ass-backward.

He didn't lose because he was a moderate, he lost because he was forced to take unpopular, conservative positions, like continuing the Iraq War, opposing health care reform, opposing immigration, opposing gun background checks, opposing infrastructure spending, and wanting to increase the Pentagon's budget with no way to pay for it.

America has rejected wingnut, teabagger brain farts.

A true Republican moderate could win again.

 

[Sallow]

He has less of a chance of winning this time than he did last time, regardless of what some pointless, far too early poll says.

He can't change his spots. He's a moderate, so he didn't have, and he won't have, the support of conservatives. Without that NO republican will win the white house.

The republicans want to see how fast they can hand the white house to another dem, run another moderate.

Republicans need to get away from this running prior losers bit. They need to wise up and run a fresh face that's a true conservative. The white house would be guaranteed.

As usual you have it completely ass-backward.

He didn't lose because he was a moderate, he lost because he was forced to take unpopular, conservative positions, like continuing the Iraq War, opposing health care reform, opposing immigration, opposing gun background checks, opposing infrastructure spending, and wanting to increase the Pentagon's budget with no way to pay for it.

America has rejected wingnut, teabagger brain farts.

A true Republican moderate could win again.

It wasn't only that. He completely reversed all his right wing views in the first debate. Which is why he "won". Obama had no idea how to deal with it.

 

[Freewill]

He has less of a chance of winning this time than he did last time, regardless of what some pointless, far too early poll says.

He can't change his spots. He's a moderate, so he didn't have, and he won't have, the support of conservatives. Without that NO republican will win the white house.

The republicans want to see how fast they can hand the white house to another dem, run another moderate.

Republicans need to get away from this running prior losers bit. They need to wise up and run a fresh face that's a true conservative. The white house would be guaranteed.

As usual you have it completely ass-backward.

He didn't lose because he was a moderate, he lost because he was forced to take unpopular, conservative positions, like continuing the Iraq War, opposing health care reform, opposing immigration, opposing gun background checks, opposing infrastructure spending, and wanting to increase the Pentagon's budget with no way to pay for it.

America has rejected wingnut, teabagger brain farts.

A true Republican moderate could win again.

What moderate republican has won in the recent history? GWB? If that is the best moderates can produce then I say let's try another Reagan.

Obama's reelection was a done deal as was his first election. Romney was right 47 percent would vote democrat no matter who they ran.

Romney was definitely the right man for the job but Obama was the candidate of choice, kinda like picking a rock star over a business man.

 

[deltex1]

This is not an "Onion" story.

Mitt Romney leads the Republican field among New Hampshire primary voters for 2016. Yes, you read that right.
Related Stories

Why not make it a third run for president? That's something that the former Republican nominee is definitely not thinking about right now. To put it in his own recent words: "Oh, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no."

But that didn't stop the Virginia-based bipartisan policy firm Purple Strategies from adding his name to a recent survey for Granite State voters, which shows Romney in the lead with 25 percent support. Libertarian firebrand Rand Paul (who has strong infrastructure in New Hampshire) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are behind with 18 percent and 17 percent support, respectively.
Mitt Romney Is the 2016 Republican Front-Runner - NationalJournal.com

Could Mitten's magic underwear prove that the third time's a charm?

So what....PIAPS is all there is on the lib side...what could be more pathetic?

 

[Sallow]

This is not an "Onion" story.

Mitt Romney leads the Republican field among New Hampshire primary voters for 2016. Yes, you read that right.
Related Stories

Why not make it a third run for president? That's something that the former Republican nominee is definitely not thinking about right now. To put it in his own recent words: "Oh, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no."

But that didn't stop the Virginia-based bipartisan policy firm Purple Strategies from adding his name to a recent survey for Granite State voters, which shows Romney in the lead with 25 percent support. Libertarian firebrand Rand Paul (who has strong infrastructure in New Hampshire) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are behind with 18 percent and 17 percent support, respectively.
Mitt Romney Is the 2016 Republican Front-Runner - NationalJournal.com

Could Mitten's magic underwear prove that the third time's a charm?

So what....PIAPS is all there is on the lib side...what could be more pathetic?

What?

 

[Sallow]

He has less of a chance of winning this time than he did last time, regardless of what some pointless, far too early poll says.

He can't change his spots. He's a moderate, so he didn't have, and he won't have, the support of conservatives. Without that NO republican will win the white house.

The republicans want to see how fast they can hand the white house to another dem, run another moderate.

Republicans need to get away from this running prior losers bit. They need to wise up and run a fresh face that's a true conservative. The white house would be guaranteed.

As usual you have it completely ass-backward.

He didn't lose because he was a moderate, he lost because he was forced to take unpopular, conservative positions, like continuing the Iraq War, opposing health care reform, opposing immigration, opposing gun background checks, opposing infrastructure spending, and wanting to increase the Pentagon's budget with no way to pay for it.

America has rejected wingnut, teabagger brain farts.

A true Republican moderate could win again.

What moderate republican has won in the recent history? GWB? If that is the best moderates can produce then I say let's try another Reagan.

Obama's reelection was a done deal as was his first election. Romney was right 47 percent would vote democrat no matter who they ran.

Romney was definitely the right man for the job but Obama was the candidate of choice, kinda like picking a rock star over a business man.

Romney was "half right".

There is probably a 47% vote baked into Democrats.

But they are not voting Democrat because they want "free stuff".

They are voting Democrat because that's the party that advocates for labor.

 

[Redfish]

As usual you have it completely ass-backward.

He didn't lose because he was a moderate, he lost because he was forced to take unpopular, conservative positions, like continuing the Iraq War, opposing health care reform, opposing immigration, opposing gun background checks, opposing infrastructure spending, and wanting to increase the Pentagon's budget with no way to pay for it.

America has rejected wingnut, teabagger brain farts.

A true Republican moderate could win again.

What moderate republican has won in the recent history? GWB? If that is the best moderates can produce then I say let's try another Reagan.

Obama's reelection was a done deal as was his first election. Romney was right 47 percent would vote democrat no matter who they ran.

Romney was definitely the right man for the job but Obama was the candidate of choice, kinda like picking a rock star over a business man.

Romney was "half right".

There is probably a 47% vote baked into Democrats.

But they are not voting Democrat because they want "free stuff".

They are voting Democrat because that's the party that advocates for labor.

lets see now---------advocating for labor

1. raising the cost of healthcare for the middle class
2. adding new taxes on the middle class
3. increasing the national debt that middle class kids will have to pay
4. driving jobs out of the country with taxes and regulations
5. spending taxpayer money to bail out the UAW--GM bailout
6. longest period of high unemployment in history
7. more americans below poverty level than ever before
8. more americans on food stamps than ever before
9. the income gap between rich and poor larger than ever
10. driven energy costs up by blocking new energy exploration

Yeah, the dems have really helped "working people".

 

[hangover]

Mitt Romney Is the 2016 Republican Front-Runner

Three time loser.... cons beat that dead horse, again.

Dems are scared of Romney at the end of the day....

Because of Mitt care? Here's a clue...It's the same thing! But please, make him the GOP nominee...please.

 

[Kondor3]

Three time loser.... cons beat that dead horse, again.

Dems are scared of Romney at the end of the day....

Because of Mitt care? Here's a clue...It's the same thing! But please, make him the GOP nominee...please.

That would be an automatic 'win' for the Democrats, wouldn't it?

Fools.

 

[JoeB131]

[

lets see now---------advocating for labor

1. raising the cost of healthcare for the middle class
2. adding new taxes on the middle class
3. increasing the national debt that middle class kids will have to pay
4. driving jobs out of the country with taxes and regulations
5. spending taxpayer money to bail out the UAW--GM bailout
6. longest period of high unemployment in history
7. more americans below poverty level than ever before
8. more americans on food stamps than ever before
9. the income gap between rich and poor larger than ever
10. driven energy costs up by blocking new energy exploration

Yeah, the dems have really helped "working people".

Yeah, because all those things were fine before Obama got there.

Oh, no, they weren't George W. Retard pretty much fucked all those things up.

 

[Silhouette]

This thread is ridiculous. When your pony breaks a leg you don't run him as your sure bet in the next race.

Democrats hope he runs again..lol.. But alas, no. They will not run Mitt again, unless for some reason they find it is a strategic gain to lose 2016..

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

[

lets see now---------advocating for labor

1. raising the cost of healthcare for the middle class
2. adding new taxes on the middle class
3. increasing the national debt that middle class kids will have to pay
4. driving jobs out of the country with taxes and regulations
5. spending taxpayer money to bail out the UAW--GM bailout
6. longest period of high unemployment in history
7. more americans below poverty level than ever before
8. more americans on food stamps than ever before
9. the income gap between rich and poor larger than ever
10. driven energy costs up by blocking new energy exploration

Yeah, the dems have really helped "working people".

Yeah, because all those things were fine before Obama got there.

Oh, no, they weren't George W. Retard pretty much fucked all those things up.

That's a weak post if I've ever seen one.