Romney Considering Another Run

[Zander]

Hillary can't be beat!! She's a lock!!

Just like in 2008!!!

only now she's older and fatter, with Bubba's sex slave scandal erupting...and of course she was POOR!!!

She's a LOCK!!!!!

 

[Debunker]

I don't think the country will survive another democrat.

 

[initforme]

I don't know if the middle class can survive another corporatist GOP.

 

[Nyvin]

If you think about it, it should be obvious that Romney wouldn't beat Hillary in any polls since the GOP base isn't as coalesced around Romney as the Democrat base is around Hillary. I think the hard conservatives and maybe evangelicals have a big part in that.

 

[BULLDOG]

Romney was a very good candidate last time around. He just happened to get beaten into defeat by the Liberal press and the 47%'ers.

You are right. The half of the country that he said he didn't care about voted against him, along with a whole lot more. You think he can turn that around this time?

You think Obama has turned anything around in the last six years?

My only complaint with Obama is that he wasted too much time trying to work with the right who obviously couldn't be worked with. Also, unlike Romney, Obama did have the backing of the majority of the country, so there wasn't much need for him to turn anything around.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

He's the only one that polls better than Hillary. He beats her in every model.

This is, of course, a lie. I collect all the polling, remember.

In every national poll in which Romney's name has been in the poll, he has lost to Hillary.
Every single time.

And in the polling for the key states of Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Colorado and North Carolina - though his name has not showed up much, he has lost to her every single time.

Must suck to be you.

Then you haven't collected all of them because I've seen Romney beating Hillary in plenty of polls.

I'll give you a little time to rethink that one. Facts can be so pesky.

There's nothing to think about. I've seen a headline after headline talking about Romney polling better than Clinton. If you've seen other polls, that's fine. I don't care. I report the truth though.

 

[AceRothstein]

Still butthurt over the polls being "wrong"?

Still buttfucked by a gang of dudes?

No, still laughing about your pre-2012 election posts/predictions.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Still butthurt over the polls being "wrong"?

Still buttfucked by a gang of dudes?

No, still laughing about your pre-2012 election posts/predictions.

No, not still buttfucked? The gangbang ended, huh?

 

[AceRothstein]

Still butthurt over the polls being "wrong"?

Still buttfucked by a gang of dudes?

No, still laughing about your pre-2012 election posts/predictions.

No, not still buttfucked? The gangbang ended, huh?

You know the other person has nothing to say when all they can offer up is insults.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You know the other person has nothing to say when all they can offer up is insults.

Okay; AND YOU STARTED THE DIALOGUE WITH AN INSULT, IDIOT.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If you think about it, it should be obvious that Romney wouldn't beat Hillary in any polls since the GOP base isn't as coalesced around Romney as the Democrat base is around Hillary. I think the hard conservatives and maybe evangelicals have a big part in that.

That's a good point. Though, I'd contend there has been polls showing Romney ahead of Clinton. I haven't studied them out or obsessed to go back and cite them; but I've seen plenty of them. Some were just headlines.

I think people making much about it in the first or second place don't get it. The 2014 dynamic and 2016 dynamic will be two different things.

 

[AceRothstein]

You know the other person has nothing to say when all they can offer up is insults.

Okay; AND YOU STARTED THE DIALOGUE WITH AN INSULT, IDIOT.

I was making fun of your false premise of urban ballot stuffing in the 2012 election. You refused to believe the state polling before the election and once it came true, you came up with your lame excuse.

 

[Statistikhengst]

If you think about it, it should be obvious that Romney wouldn't beat Hillary in any polls since the GOP base isn't as coalesced around Romney as the Democrat base is around Hillary. I think the hard conservatives and maybe evangelicals have a big part in that.

That's a good point. Though, I'd contend there has been polls showing Romney ahead of Clinton. I haven't studied them out or obsessed to go back and cite them; but I've seen plenty of them. Some were just headlines.

I think people making much about it in the first or second place don't get it. The 2014 dynamic and 2016 dynamic will be two different things.

There have been 234 polls since December 2009: Hillary vs. specific names of possible contenders from the GOP field. Romney is among those names. There are well over 800 matchups total. Romney is in only 7or 8 of those matchups, he has not won even one. Not even one. I will give you one last chance to admit that you are full of shit, or I will simply post each and every one of those polls right here that involve Clinton vs. Romney.

For instance, of those 234 polls, 53 are national polls, and Romney is in only 3-matchups
Clinton 55 / Romney 42 is the most recent matchup
Clinton 48 / Romney 43
Clinton 53 / Romney 44

Shall we continue?



I already handed your ass to you on your famous 2012 predictions thread, I have no problem doing it to you again. Math triumphs over propaganda every single time.

 

[Statistikhengst]

If you think about it, it should be obvious that Romney wouldn't beat Hillary in any polls since the GOP base isn't as coalesced around Romney as the Democrat base is around Hillary. I think the hard conservatives and maybe evangelicals have a big part in that.

That's a good point. Though, I'd contend there has been polls showing Romney ahead of Clinton. I haven't studied them out or obsessed to go back and cite them; but I've seen plenty of them. Some were just headlines.

I think people making much about it in the first or second place don't get it. The 2014 dynamic and 2016 dynamic will be two different things.

There have been 234 polls since December 2009: Hillary vs. specific names of possible contenders from the GOP field. Romney is among those names. There are well over 800 matchups total. Romney is in only 7 or 8 of those matchups, he has not won even one. Not even one. I will give you one last chance to admit that you are full of shit, or I will simply post each and every one of those polls right here that involve Clinton vs. Romney.

For instance, of those 234 polls, 53 are national polls, and Romney is in only 3-matchups
Clinton 55 / Romney 42 is the most recent matchup
Clinton 48 / Romney 43
Clinton 53 / Romney 44

Shall we continue?



I already handed your ass to you on your famous 2012 predictions thread, I have no problem doing it to you again. Math triumphs over propaganda every single time.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I don't think this is a good idea. He was a poor candidate the last time around, and a very weak field was a big reason why he won the nomination.

Romney Tells Donors He s Mulling a Presidential Bid - Bloomberg Politics

But there is historical precedence:

1940 - Thomas E. Dewey (R) runs, loses at the convention. The guy who beat Dewey at the convention (Wendell Willkie) loses the GE to FDR (D)
2008 - Willard Romney (R) runs, loses at the convention. The guy who beat Romney at the convention (John McCain) loses the GE to Obama (D)

1944 - Thomas E. Dewey (R) runs, wins the nomination, loses the GE to FDR (D)
2012 - Willard Romney (R) runs, wins the nomination, loses the GE to Obama (D)

1948 - Thomas E. Dewey runs a THIRD time in a row, wins the nomination a SECOND time in a row, loses the GE to Truman (D)
2016 - ???




Run, Mitt, run! I see a statistical pattern forming!

According to that analysis Romney will be running against the incumbent president, Joe Biden. That has at least a couple of upbeat aspects to it.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I was making fun of your false premise of urban ballot stuffing in the 2012 election.

You accused me of being "butthurt." out of the blue. What the f do you think an insult is, a-hole? 'You had nothing to say' is right. You're the one that came at me in your callous tone. If you want respect, then give it.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If you think about it, it should be obvious that Romney wouldn't beat Hillary in any polls since the GOP base isn't as coalesced around Romney as the Democrat base is around Hillary. I think the hard conservatives and maybe evangelicals have a big part in that.

That's a good point. Though, I'd contend there has been polls showing Romney ahead of Clinton. I haven't studied them out or obsessed to go back and cite them; but I've seen plenty of them. Some were just headlines.

I think people making much about it in the first or second place don't get it. The 2014 dynamic and 2016 dynamic will be two different things.

There have been 234 polls since December 2009: Hillary vs. specific names of possible contenders from the GOP field. Romney is among those names. There are well over 800 matchups total. Romney is in only 7 or 8 of those matchups, he has not won even one. Not even one. I will give you one last chance to admit that you are full of shit, or I will simply post each and every one of those polls right here that involve Clinton vs. Romney.

For instance, of those 234 polls, 53 are national polls, and Romney is in only 3-matchups
Clinton 55 / Romney 42 is the most recent matchup
Clinton 48 / Romney 43
Clinton 53 / Romney 44

Shall we continue?



I already handed your ass to you on your famous 2012 predictions thread, I have no problem doing it to you again. Math triumphs over propaganda every single time.

You should stop talking out of your ass. I had to click on all of one links in a search to find that you are wrong.

Hillary Clinton is not invincible. As we said last week, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a historically strong candidate for the Democratic nomination. But that’s not the same thing as being unbeatable in November 2016. She’s ahead of most GOP candidates by a comfortable margin, but not a huge one. And the Quinnipiac survey has her losing a head-to-head to ... you guessed it, Romney. He takes that one 45 to 44 percent.

Mitt Romney leads new poll. Three things that tells us. video - CSMonitor.com

 

[Statistikhengst]

That is a statistical tie. You do realize that, right. No, you don't. I will hand you more of your ass later when I have time. This will be fun!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[LoneLaugher]

Go Mitt!! Go!!

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

That is a statistical tie. You do realize that, right. No, you don't. I will hand you more of your ass later when I have time. This will be fun!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I figured you would want to split hairs. Yes, some people like to call something within the margin of error a tie. Up is up though. In any event, you picked a shitty thing to argue about given that reality. Leave it to you to trifle on stuff that doesn't matter though.

And btw, that Quinnipiac poll is from Nov 26, 2014 at a time when there is virtually no national polling (it's just about all party based polls at this point). So, really this whole thing defies your silly notion that HC is in ever such a dominant lead.

And here's some more gravy for you: this poll showing Romney ahead of Clinton among Iowa voters:

Iowa Poll Romney leads Clinton in 2016 matchup