Romney Considering Another Run

[Super_Lantern]

That pastor who endorsed Rick Perry with the infamous "he's a genuine follower of Jesus Christ" line (seen as a jab at Mitt and his faith) actually heavily backfired against the Perry camp,and was seen as a major blunder in the 2012 GOP primary. I don't think Mitt and his Mormon faith was ever touched on notably after that in the 2012 election



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/us/politics/prominent-pastor-calls-romneys-church-a-cult.html

It is a cult.

That's fine but that has nothing to do with the bad PR the mormon hate brought the GOP primary and was abruptly dropped as a notable concern towards Mitt in the 2012 election. Of course we all have views and stances on different religions, but wanting to make Mitt's Mormonism a major issue in a 2016 run seems like a poor choice. I think it would only get him sympathy and support from moderates (and the more moderate votes you can grab, the better)

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Now, do you really think that Jeb has access to more money than Jeb at this point? Who is truly the bigger name? Who is truly the bigger horse? And here's the real question for those big backers; who is more business/tax friendly? The answer is Mitt. I'd be shocked; truly shocked if Jeb raised more funds than Mitt. Remember, Mitt already did better in fundraising in 12 than Bush III (aka McCain) did in 08; and McCain had more ties as a high profile Senator than backwater Jeb could dream of, I'd argue.

I'm assuming the second bolded name is supposed to be Mitt. Yes - I believe that Jeb has access to more money than Mitt. Mitt is damaged goods.

And Jeb being a 'backwater' - whatever the hell that's supposed to mean (he's much more plugged into Wall Street and the business world than either his brother or father ever were) - has nothing to do with anything when you have the Bush Machine getting into gear. That means Defense contractors, Halliburton, the whole PNAC list, every heavy hitter in the Republican Party, which means state heads of the GOP.

That's why Jeb has made all this noise so early - to lock up the money and the commitments.

Mitt's damaged goods cos he lost an election? You want to know who the strongest candidate is, just look at who liberals argue against the most. It's Mitt, not Jeb, not someone else; and it's not even close. It's like Obi Wan Kinobi said, 'if you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you'll ever imagine.'

And if you believe that Jeb can outraise Mitt, who almost raised more than a cheating Obama did; well, let's just say that I have a hard time believing that you really believe that.

I'll admit that the Bushes are better at getting along behind the scenes than they'll ever let on; so, I won't totally disregard your opinion. I think he could start to contend money-wise with Romney; and actually I think that's why Romney hast thrown his name into the ring a few months earlier than he wanted. But he's going to have to start polling a lot better first. Right now, he's nowhere close to Mitt in the polls; and many big donors don't just want to just throw their money to the wrong guy.

 

[HenryBHough]

After eight years of Obama will America be ready for a lurch further left with the father of Romneycare?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Now, come on, magic underwear and all?...That's why we need a NEW person with no history, or, al least, a squeaky clean history!

So, you would appear to be a bigot is the bottom line. I don't think religion will be the issue. And like I said, you're in fantasy land if you think anyone with a better rep and resources than Mitt is going to come along. It won't happen, and you know it. And if you think it'll happen, how about you throw out some names so I can have a good laugh.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You basically take any election you don't like the outcome of and say "He cheated!" and use some excuse as to how and give your guy the win even though they lost.

You're just not an honest person and you want to sell the idea that Obama is great at all costs. Do you really think that 95 percent of ******* hoods were showing up to vote for Obama? If you honestly think that, you've never stepped one foot into the inner city in your life and have been holed in an igloo in Alaska. But surmising that's not the case, yea you're full of shit. Don't try to make this about sour grapes. Because whether I have them or not, the ******* reality is that that election was plenty damn rigged.

And as a sidebar, the fact that the mainstream media didn't investigate this among many other glaring offenses shows just how useless they've became; and people would be smart to start tuning them out. This is why their ratings are crap more and more, too.

The Republican SOS released the stats on voter fraud in Ohio : 0.0024%, 135 votes out of well over 5 million cast, many of them SENIOR CITIZENS who accidentally voted twice by sending in an early absentee ballot and then having gone to vote on election day because they forgot. 5 of those 135 turned themselves in, a number were college students who have successfully challenged the fraud charges and won.

0.0024%. That's it for Ohio.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You basically take any election you don't like the outcome of and say "He cheated!" and use some excuse as to how and give your guy the win even though they lost.

You're just not an honest person and you want to sell the idea that Obama is great at all costs. Do you really think that 95 percent of ******* hoods were showing up to vote for Obama? If you honestly think that, you've never stepped one foot into the inner city in your life and have been holed in an igloo in Alaska. But surmising that's not the case, yea you're full of shit. Don't try to make this about sour grapes. Because whether I have them or not, the ******* reality is that that election was plenty damn rigged.

And as a sidebar, the fact that the mainstream media didn't investigate this among many other glaring offenses shows just how useless they've became; and people would be smart to start tuning them out. This is why their ratings are crap more and more, too.

The Republican SOS released the stats on voter fraud in Ohio : 0.0024%, 135 votes out of well over 5 million cast, many of them SENIOR CITIZENS who accidentally voted twice by sending in an early absentee ballot and then having gone to vote on election day because they forgot. 5 of those 135 turned themselves in, a number were college students who have successfully challenged the fraud charges and won.

0.0024%. That's it for Ohio.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I don't know what the hell the Republican SOS is. But in any event, I'm not buying those lame numbers for one moment.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You basically take any election you don't like the outcome of and say "He cheated!" and use some excuse as to how and give your guy the win even though they lost.

You're just not an honest person and you want to sell the idea that Obama is great at all costs. Do you really think that 95 percent of ******* hoods were showing up to vote for Obama? If you honestly think that, you've never stepped one foot into the inner city in your life and have been holed in an igloo in Alaska. But surmising that's not the case, yea you're full of shit. Don't try to make this about sour grapes. Because whether I have them or not, the ******* reality is that that election was plenty damn rigged.

And as a sidebar, the fact that the mainstream media didn't investigate this among many other glaring offenses shows just how useless they've became; and people would be smart to start tuning them out. This is why their ratings are crap more and more, too.

The Republican SOS released the stats on voter fraud in Ohio : 0.0024%, 135 votes out of well over 5 million cast, many of them SENIOR CITIZENS who accidentally voted twice by sending in an early absentee ballot and then having gone to vote on election day because they forgot. 5 of those 135 turned themselves in, a number were college students who have successfully challenged the fraud charges and won.

0.0024%. That's it for Ohio.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I don't know what the hell the Republican SOS is. But in any event, I'm not buying those lame numbers for one moment.

Yes, I can imagine that you don't know that. SOS is the abbreviation for Secretary of State.

And here are the numbers, posted in May, 2013:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond EXACT voter-fraud statistics out of Battleground OHIO

And the direct link:

Investigations recommend 135 cases from November election for prosecution for voter fraud Secretary of State Jon Husted reports cleveland.com

The math is at the first link.

Enjoy your piece of humble pie.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

He polls better than Jebbie though, doesn't he?

 

[Statistikhengst]

The problem with people who scream fraud, even 2 years after a presidential election where the final canvasses, signed by the respective SOSs, were turned in and the electors have already cast their ballots, is that too many factors work against these "it was fraud" nuts.

First, virtually every polling station in every state of the US and DC is manned by poll workers of both parties. The counting of ballots is done with representatives of BOTH parties present. In order for fraud of this kind - that would have been necessary for Obama to have "stolen" the 2012 election - would have required the collusion of hundreds, if not thousands of poll workers of BOTH PARTIES.

Second, and this point is even more important: often, the fraudsters say that it was the electronic machines that switched votes, yadayadyada, but studies, county for county, show that in counties that only do paper ballots, the shifts and trends were pretty much the same as in counties with electronic ballots.

I used exactly these same arguments in 2005 when some of my Democratic friends were screaming that Bush 43 cheated and stole the election. He did not. He won Ohio by +2.11%, and the swings and trends for him elsewhere in the country are in line-with his performance on election night, 2004.

Bush did not steal the election of 2004.
And Obama did not steal the election of 2012.

It's that simple.

If Republicans are so convinced that fraud happened, maybe they need to find a candidate who can garner a massive landslide for their party. Let's see: all he or she would need to do be to attract black, latino, asian, american indian, pacific islander, indian (as in, India) jewish, muslim, buddhist and gay voters instead of demonizing all of them, and he or she could just maybe, just maybe have a crack at a landslide.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

He polls better than Jebbie thought, doesn't he?

Yes. In the sparse Hillary vs. Romney polling, Romney comes closer to her, but not as close as he came to Obama in most 2012 polling.

 

[JoeB131]

There's nothing absurd about it. Swinging any vote a few percent is not as hard as you'd like to think. Do you really think it's a coincidence that none of the swing states ended up being close? But even if you don't, you casually swept over the point of obvious ballot stuffing. IMO, that could just be the tip of the iceburg. This doesn't even explore potential technological scams that are probably a reality.

Well, first, Ohio and Florida were close.

Second, no, there wasn't any "ballot stuffing" or any of the other fantasies you guys like to spew.

Here's the real problem. Your side didn't even like your candidate. Other than his fellow Mormon Cultists, no one on the GOP side was really thrilled with Romney. If you guys can't get excited about him, why did you expect anyone else to?

The only reason why Romney got the nomination is he was running against people who were completely nuts. Yes, the least nutty guy you could find to nominate in 2012 was the one who thought he was wearing magic underwear and was going to rule a planet in the afterlife.

 

[JoeB131]

That pastor who endorsed Rick Perry with the infamous "he's a genuine follower of Jesus Christ" line (seen as a jab at Mitt and his faith) actually heavily backfired against the Perry camp,and was seen as a major blunder in the 2012 GOP primary. I don't think Mitt and his Mormon faith was ever touched on notably after that in the 2012 election

which is kind of a pity. If most Americans knew the crazy shit Mormons actually believe, they'd have run in horror.

They didn't want a replay of 2008 where Huckabee and Romney were having an argument about whether or not Jesus Christ and Satan were brothers. But it says a lot about the mindset of the GOP where that kind of discussion is even being HAD in the 21st century.

 

[Toro]

Bush did not steal the election of 2004.
And Obama did not steal the election of 2012.

Bush didn't steal 2000 either.

The people who scream that these elections were stolen are partisan sore losers, and usually not that high up on the intellectual totem pole.

 

[JoeB131]

That's fine but that has nothing to do with the bad PR the mormon hate brought the GOP primary and was abruptly dropped as a notable concern towards Mitt in the 2012 election. Of course we all have views and stances on different religions, but wanting to make Mitt's Mormonism a major issue in a 2016 run seems like a poor choice. I think it would only get him sympathy and support from moderates (and the more moderate votes you can grab, the better)

Here's the thing. The Christian Right is at it's very core, racist as shit. Romney could have been a worshiper of Dread C'Thulhu and the Christian right still would have supported him over Obama.

Sensible Person - "He's Released the Great Old Ones! The WORLD is doomed!!!"

Christian Right Idiot - "Yeah, but at least we got that N****r out of the White House!!!"

 

[Mac1958]

.

Republicans, wouldn't Romney and Bush pretty much suck the oxygen out of the room?

Seems to me their presence would render many of the "hopefuls" a little insignificant, no?

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You basically take any election you don't like the outcome of and say "He cheated!" and use some excuse as to how and give your guy the win even though they lost.

You're just not an honest person and you want to sell the idea that Obama is great at all costs. Do you really think that 95 percent of ******* hoods were showing up to vote for Obama? If you honestly think that, you've never stepped one foot into the inner city in your life and have been holed in an igloo in Alaska. But surmising that's not the case, yea you're full of shit. Don't try to make this about sour grapes. Because whether I have them or not, the ******* reality is that that election was plenty damn rigged.

And as a sidebar, the fact that the mainstream media didn't investigate this among many other glaring offenses shows just how useless they've became; and people would be smart to start tuning them out. This is why their ratings are crap more and more, too.

The Republican SOS released the stats on voter fraud in Ohio : 0.0024%, 135 votes out of well over 5 million cast, many of them SENIOR CITIZENS who accidentally voted twice by sending in an early absentee ballot and then having gone to vote on election day because they forgot. 5 of those 135 turned themselves in, a number were college students who have successfully challenged the fraud charges and won.

0.0024%. That's it for Ohio.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

That many on the right still buy into the inane myth that the president won reelection as a consequence of 'voter fraud' is pathetic and bizarre.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Not only that, for the 2012 election cycle, there were 117 polls from Ohio, from January 19, 2012 through election day.

You can see all 117 of those polls here:

Google Sheets - create and edit spreadsheets online for free.

Also in 2011:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond Statewide polling data through 11 16 2011 - NH through WI

From December 2010 to end of November 2011, there were also 12 Ohio polls, Obama vs. Romney.

So, that makes a total of 129 polls for the Buckeye state.

For any given month up to End of October, Obama's aggregate (polling average) in Ohio was always between +3 and +4.
At the very end, his aggregate landed at +3.
One election night, Obama won Ohio by +3 (+2.97, to be exact).

You can take the polling starting in the spring of 2012 and drop the needle anywhere and compare a 2 week time-frame or a 4 week timeframe from that point and the average is between +3 and +4 for Obama. His polling in this state was far more consistent that the polling for Bill Clinton (92, 96), for Gore vs. Bush (2000), for Bush vs. Kerry (2004) and even more consistent that his own battle against John McCain in 2008.

The very proof that the Romney team took these statistics seriously is that they suddenly shifted attention to Pennsylvania, realizing that Obama had a slim but consistent lock on Ohio. And I reported on these statistics all through 2012 and especially in the last 7 weeks, where I published nightly BATTLEGROUND REPORTS for 42 nights straight. Here is the first one:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond Battleground Report 09 25 2012 - T-minus 42 days

Ohio, Florida and Virginia were the three most polled states of the 2012 cycle and Ohio was by far the most consistent state in the Union in terms of polling performance. In aggregate polling, Romney never got ahead of Obama, not even once.

And as goes Ohio, so goes the nation.

Oh, and just for fun, a complete analysis of ALL end polls for all states, by pollster:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond The moment of truth how did the pollsters do

 

[Statistikhengst]

You basically take any election you don't like the outcome of and say "He cheated!" and use some excuse as to how and give your guy the win even though they lost.

You're just not an honest person and you want to sell the idea that Obama is great at all costs. Do you really think that 95 percent of ******* hoods were showing up to vote for Obama? If you honestly think that, you've never stepped one foot into the inner city in your life and have been holed in an igloo in Alaska. But surmising that's not the case, yea you're full of shit. Don't try to make this about sour grapes. Because whether I have them or not, the ******* reality is that that election was plenty damn rigged.

And as a sidebar, the fact that the mainstream media didn't investigate this among many other glaring offenses shows just how useless they've became; and people would be smart to start tuning them out. This is why their ratings are crap more and more, too.

The Republican SOS released the stats on voter fraud in Ohio : 0.0024%, 135 votes out of well over 5 million cast, many of them SENIOR CITIZENS who accidentally voted twice by sending in an early absentee ballot and then having gone to vote on election day because they forgot. 5 of those 135 turned themselves in, a number were college students who have successfully challenged the fraud charges and won.

0.0024%. That's it for Ohio.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

That many on the right still buy into the inane myth that the president won reelection as a consequence of 'voter fraud' is pathetic and bizarre.

It flies completely in the face of hard facts and reality.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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!

Five Reasons Romney Is Thinking of Running FiveThirtyEight

Pretty good chart. But it doesn't take into account major figures who actually lost a nomination and came back to win it and either win or lost the WH, like Dewey 1940 and Reagan 1976, also Bush 41 1980.

 

[JoeB131]

.

Republicans, wouldn't Romney and Bush pretty much suck the oxygen out of the room?

Seems to me their presence would render many of the "hopefuls" a little insignificant, no?

.

Actually, Romney and Bush would split the "Establishment" vote, and maybe give a movement conservative a chance.

But more likely, Bush would beat Romney in Iowa (where they suddenly might remember he's a Mormon) and in South Carolina, and frankly, New Hampshire would be Romney's best hope for staying viable.