What will those who support Romney do when he loses to Obama?

[Cuyo]

I guarantee the number one complaint from the Right if Romney loses to Obama will be that he wasn't conservative enough,

and then, when you ask them which 'conservative' candidate could have beaten Obama,

they'll mumble something incoherent, and wander off.

Daniels. Jeb Bush. Mike Huckabee. Any of them would have probably done fine.

Yeah brilliant 'stragidy.' Run the 'dumb kid' from a family that includes Dubya.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Ah, yes......Rush T.V.....when epic-failure was allowing (actual) debate with audience-members.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNK4byQkn7w]A Bully Gets Bullied - YouTube[/ame]

.

.

.

.

 

[Full-Auto]

Claim he lost because he's not a "Real Conservative."

Are you saying he is?

No. But if he loses, it won't be for that reason. A "Real Conservative" can't even seem to gain any traction in the primary. It certainly isn't a trait that would make a lock for the general.

Thats because they keep running their mouth on social issues instead of economics.


IDIOTS..............

 

[Cuyo]

Are you saying he is?

No. But if he loses, it won't be for that reason. A "Real Conservative" can't even seem to gain any traction in the primary. It certainly isn't a trait that would make a lock for the general.

Thats because they keep running their mouth on social issues instead of economics.


IDIOTS..............

Well, yeah, social cons tend to be... Not only that but extremely out of touch.

 

[JoeB131]

Claim he lost because he's not a "Real Conservative."

Are you saying he is?

No. But if he loses, it won't be for that reason. A "Real Conservative" can't even seem to gain any traction in the primary. It certainly isn't a trait that would make a lock for the general.

Well, a couple of things on that.

First, the process itself is a part of the problem. The first two states are Iowa and New Hampshire. Liberal states which allow a lot of cross-voting. The GOP has only carried either state once in the last five elections, yet these are the states that are up first and winnow out most of the field. If you had your heart set on voting for Michelle Bachmann, too bad. She dropped out in Iowa.

Second, you have this brain dead philosophy in the GOP that "it's his turn", which means that even though you've rejected this loser once before, you have to go with him this time because it's "his turn". The Establishment likes this because they think the guy has been vetted, but really, there was probably a good reason why your voters didn't want him four or eight years ago.

The Democrats, by contrast, have a philosophy of shooting their wounded. YOu get one shot, and you're done. Yeah, we mean you, John Edwards.

This particular time, no one wanted to run against Obama because honestly, they know whoever runs against him is going to get tarred as a racist. Not fair, but it's going to happen. This morning, our boy Chris Matthews opined that Evagelical bigoty against blacks will outweigh their bigotry against Mormons. Expect a lot more shit like that.

Better to keep your powder dry, and then run in 2016, when Obama can't run again and no clear successor will be out there.

 

[Full-Auto]

No. But if he loses, it won't be for that reason. A "Real Conservative" can't even seem to gain any traction in the primary. It certainly isn't a trait that would make a lock for the general.

Thats because they keep running their mouth on social issues instead of economics.


IDIOTS..............

Well, yeah, social cons tend to be... Not only that but extremely out of touch.

As much as I like to argue on occasion, it wont be this subject.

Somehow a forehead slap doesnt do it justice.

 

[JoeB131]

Daniels. Jeb Bush. Mike Huckabee. Any of them would have probably done fine.

Yeah brilliant 'stragidy.' Run the 'dumb kid' from a family that includes Dubya.

A family that has produced two presidents...

Republicans only seem to win when they have a Bush on the ballot.

 

[Cuyo]

Thats because they keep running their mouth on social issues instead of economics.


IDIOTS..............

Well, yeah, social cons tend to be... Not only that but extremely out of touch.

As much as I like to argue on occasion, it wont be this subject.

Somehow a forehead slap doesnt do it justice.

Your words, not mine.

 

[kyzr]

I guarantee the number one complaint from the Right if Romney loses to Obama will be that he wasn't conservative enough,

and then, when you ask them which 'conservative' candidate could have beaten Obama,

they'll mumble something incoherent, and wander off.

Daniels. Jeb Bush. Mike Huckabee. Any of them would have probably done fine.

I think Romney's lack of genuine conservatism is part of the problem. So are

1) His goofy religion
2) His slimy business practices
3) His tendancy to say really stupid things like "I like to be able to fire people"

But what is going to save Obama is that last time, 69 million people voted for him. 69 million people who aren't ready to admit they made a mistake, because really, admitting a mistake is against human nature. Rationalizing mistakes is human nature. So what we will see with those people is finding some way to rationalize what they did in 2008 while doing it again in 2012.

This is why incumbents almost always win second terms, unless there is something like a third party insurgency undermining his base (Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in 1992.) people will stick by their bad decision.

Meanwhile, Romney has to win over all the people who voted for McCain last time all over again, and THEN try to get some of the folks who voted for Obama to either stay home or vote for him. It's a Herculean labor, when you come to think of it.

And the fact that Romney isn't at all likable or someone most people can relate to doesn't help matters in the least.

The no-show presidential candidates have done their homework. They all know that 2016 offers a much better chance than 2012. Romney was and is the "prohibitive favorite" in the primaries. He has money and organization, and learned a lot in 2008. Obama's chances hinge on the unemployment rate, and above 7% NO PREZ EVER WAS RE-ELECTED.
In some ways the 2012 election will be like 2008, when the GOP was dogshit and ANY dem could win easily. Recall the economy crashing down due to the financial crisis. Now its a matter of things are no better, so any GOP candidate could win in 2012 because things are not good.
So if Romney wins its 2020 for the no-shows, if Romney loses its full-speed in 2016. If Romney wins can he improve the economy in only 4-years with the entitlement mess?

 

[Full-Auto]

Well, yeah, social cons tend to be... Not only that but extremely out of touch.

As much as I like to argue on occasion, it wont be this subject.

Somehow a forehead slap doesnt do it justice.

Your words, not mine.

I know many dislike the fact I rag on dems tough. Wait until the repubs actually have some say.
\
My bet for this year. Boehner goes limp and we see additional increases in spending.

Any takers?

 

[elvis]

I guarantee the number one complaint from the Right if Romney loses to Obama will be that he wasn't conservative enough,

and then, when you ask them which 'conservative' candidate could have beaten Obama,

they'll mumble something incoherent, and wander off.

Daniels. Jeb Bush. Mike Huckabee. Any of them would have probably done fine.

Yeah brilliant 'stragidy.' Run the 'dumb kid' from a family that includes Dubya.

He just hates Mormons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What will those who support Romney do when he loses to Obama?

They’re really not going to be that upset, they’ll just move on to 2016 and make sure the right republican gets the nomination.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Congratulate him and watch him **** things up for another 4-years. Just look at what will be happening in the next 4-years:

1. Medicare will be bankrupt
2. Hospitals will go bankrupt
3. The 30,000,000 freeloaders w/o health insurance will be expecting free medical care
4. The US currency will be downgraded again, which means no more borrowing
5. DC gridlock continues, with the GOP expected to pick-up both Senate and House seats
6. Probably another major economic dip when the EU crashes
7. Thats a quick look at what awaits in the next term...

Ah, yes......those same horror-scenarios you folks predicted, during.....

The CLINTON YEARS

*

"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit."

- Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)

Yeah......it's gonna be a real tragedy.....watching those Bush Tax-Cuts die.....and, returning to the.....

.....CLINTON-RATE$!!!!!

 

[Ava]

This is a serious question to all who support this traitor Romney, for who I find no reason to vote any more then for Obama

I will rejoice. The win would mean a loss for the current president.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Daniels. Jeb Bush. Mike Huckabee. Any of them would have probably done fine.

Yeah brilliant 'stragidy.' Run the 'dumb kid' from a family that includes Dubya.

A family that has produced two presidents...

Republicans only seem to win when they have a Bush on the ballot.

.....And, our economy always manages to.....

.....take it, in-the-ASS....

......when the Bush Crew is in the Oval Office!!!!!!

​

 

[Oldstyle]

Trying to treat this seriously, this is what will happen.

People like me will point out that Romney was an awful candidate from the get go. And they'll snarl at us for not supporting their bad choice.

Then some people will complain he wasn't "conservative" enough, and there will be some truth to that, but that isn't what cost him the election.

Romney is a bad choice. A guy who says "I like to fire people" isn't going to win a popularity contest when so many people have been fired.

But he is indicative of the GOP's bigger problem. It's a party that has put Wall Street in front of Main Steet, Billionaire ahead of working folks. Until they address THAT problem, they are going to keep losing elections.

First of all taking the "I like to fire people" comment totally out of context to try and defame Romney is a sleazy tactic, Joe. If you don't like the guy then rip him for something substantive and not that silly shit.

As for the Republicans putting Wall Street in front of Main Street? That's such a load of crap. The issue in 2012 is whether we are going to return to fiscal sanity in Washington or continue deluding ourselves that we can keep on spending the way we are. This isn't about putting Billionaires ahead of working folks. It's about making smart choices. When even a liberal Keynesian economist like Christina Romer is warning us not to raise taxes on ANYONE in a weak economy, then why are we still having this discussion? WE SHOULD NOT RAISE TAXES UNTIL THE ECONOMY IS STRONG!!! Why is this such a hard concept for so many of you people to understand? Obama and the Democrats are running on "tax the rich" because it's a populist message that they think will get them reelected. Well, I hate to throw cold water on the progressives that are all a twitter with how well that message is polling but at some point the electorate is going to realize that it was all just a big con job and they are going to be pissed that they were misled. It might happen next Fall...it might take a year after that...but sooner or later that bill IS going to come due.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This is a serious question to all who support this traitor Romney, for who I find no reason to vote any more then for Obama

I will rejoice. The win would mean a loss for the current president.

Gee......how profound.

Stupid fuckin' Bubbleheads....​

 

[kyzr]

Congratulate him and watch him **** things up for another 4-years. Just look at what will be happening in the next 4-years:

1. Medicare will be bankrupt
2. Hospitals will go bankrupt
3. The 30,000,000 freeloaders w/o health insurance will be expecting free medical care
4. The US currency will be downgraded again, which means no more borrowing
5. DC gridlock continues, with the GOP expected to pick-up both Senate and House seats
6. Probably another major economic dip when the EU crashes
7. Thats a quick look at what awaits in the next term...

Ah, yes......those same horror-scenarios you folks predicted, during.....

The CLINTON YEARS

*

"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit."

- Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)

Yeah......it's gonna be a real tragedy.....watching those Bush Tax-Cuts die.....and, returning to the.....

.....CLINTON-RATE$!!!!!

I was surprised when Obama extended the Bush Tax Cuts. Returning to the Clinton Tax Rates is a good start, but its not the solution.
1. Recall that Obama's Budget got ZERO Votes in the Senate. That means that they are too stupid to put up a real Budget.
2. Last debate between the Congress and the Executive it was stated that this 2012 election will be the "decider" as to how to Balance the Budget. Yet I don't see any major battle-lines being drawn on the BUDGET? WTF? Did both sides agree to kick the can down the road and let Medicare and SS go bankrupt?​

 

[JoeB131]

The no-show presidential candidates have done their homework. They all know that 2016 offers a much better chance than 2012. Romney was and is the "prohibitive favorite" in the primaries. He has money and organization, and learned a lot in 2008. Obama's chances hinge on the unemployment rate, and above 7% NO PREZ EVER WAS RE-ELECTED. In some ways the 2012 election will be like 2008, when the GOP was dogshit and ANY dem could win easily. Recall the economy crashing down due to the financial crisis. Now its a matter of things are no better, so any GOP candidate could win in 2012 because things are not good.
So if Romney wins its 2020 for the no-shows, if Romney loses its full-speed in 2016. If Romney wins can he improve the economy in only 4-years with the entitlement mess?

The bolded part isn't true. Unemployment was 7.4% when Ronald Reagan won re-election in 1984, which was only .1% lower than the 7.5% it was when he beat Jimmy Carter and much lower than the peak 11.3% it hit in early 1983.

He won 49 states. He nearly won 50 states, had it not been for a slight loss in MN (Mondale's home state.)

The three presidents who lost since WWII were Ford (7.7 on election day) Carter (7.5 as I said) and Bush-41 (7.3) But in all those cases -

1) Unemployment was trending up, not down.
2) Carter and Bush had third party challengers who were eating into their base. Ford never won election to start with, he was an appointed president with no political base.

Neither will be a problem Obama will face. Unemployment will probalby continue to trend down this year. Assuming a modest reduction of .1% per month, he'll be at 7.5% in November, a pretty comfortable position to be in. It will be less than when he took office, and he can credibly claim to have turned a corner.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What will those who support Romney do when he loses to Obama?

They’re really not going to be that upset, they’ll just move on to 2016 and make sure the right republican gets the nomination.

It will be interesting to see which Republican is willing to be sacrificed (See: Dole, Romney....), in 2016 (and, '20), running-against......