Romney Considering Another Run

[JoeB131]

No one gets libs mad like Romney lol. He stays on their mind.

Romney should get everyone mad. He makes republicans look like assholes.

 

[Super_Lantern]

What does everyone think of the rumored "three pillar" platform a Romney 2016 campaign will run on? I think the three pillars are (1) battling poverty, (2) something about the middle class, and (3) America looking confident and operating strong in foreign policy

Those in the room told Romney that he needed to outline a clear rationale for getting into the race, and Romney outlined the three issues that were driving him: poverty, foreign affairs, and long-term economic stability.

But nearly an hour of the 90-minute session was devoted to Romney’s past campaign, and what he needs to fix if he runs another. Several were adamant: He had to clean house, and couldn’t rely on the same team as he did last time. Romney agreed, telling the room that he had been led down the wrong path on some things, and his campaign failed to fully articulate his rationale for running.

They urged Romney to be more comfortable in public, to come across like he did in the documentary “MITT,” released last year. Some close to Romney say they’ve seen a looser side to him lately, citing him putting bunny ears over former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown during Governor Charlie Baker’s inauguration.

In private Mitt Romney starting to outline rationale for third presidential campaign - Politics - The Boston Globe

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Well by that logic, Hillary shouldn't run. Of course, you never worry about logic.

well, no, Hillary has only taken one shot at the nomination.

The Weird Mormon Robot has had two.

Oh, that's a convenient statistical nuance. How about you just say you're full of it and save everyone some time.

well, no, it's really not. First, in Hillary's first run, she actually got MORE votes than Obama did. Obama won because the rules disallowed some delegates from being counted and allowed superdelegates to make the final decision. That means she's really entitled to another shot if the voters will have her.

Romney, on the other hand, lost big time in 2008, in 2012, he ran against guys who were fucking jokes and still struggled, and got beaten by a president who all statistical models said he should have beaten. And he lost it by being stupid.

I was sort of musing myself with your Iowa rants. Dude, Iowa doesn't decide the winner. They can give whomever a boost. And it's not about being 'entitled,' shmutz.

 

[nodoginnafight]

"Romney Considering Another Run"

apparently Seabiscuit is too.
My money is on the horse.

 

[Statistikhengst]

"Romney Considering Another Run"

apparently Seabiscuit is too.
My money is on the horse.

 

[Statistikhengst]

What does everyone think of the rumored "three pillar" platform a Romney 2016 campaign will run on? I think the three pillars are (1) battling poverty, (2) something about the middle class, and (3) America looking confident and operating strong in foreign policy

Those in the room told Romney that he needed to outline a clear rationale for getting into the race, and Romney outlined the three issues that were driving him: poverty, foreign affairs, and long-term economic stability.

But nearly an hour of the 90-minute session was devoted to Romney’s past campaign, and what he needs to fix if he runs another. Several were adamant: He had to clean house, and couldn’t rely on the same team as he did last time. Romney agreed, telling the room that he had been led down the wrong path on some things, and his campaign failed to fully articulate his rationale for running.

They urged Romney to be more comfortable in public, to come across like he did in the documentary “MITT,” released last year. Some close to Romney say they’ve seen a looser side to him lately, citing him putting bunny ears over former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown during Governor Charlie Baker’s inauguration.

In private Mitt Romney starting to outline rationale for third presidential campaign - Politics - The Boston Globe

Yes, bunny ears. That's what every campaign needs.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Looks like the Mormon Moron is already circling the drain.

Mitt 3.0 Fails To Impress Conservatives At Major Conference In Washington

Damn! I love Magic Underpants and The Dancing Horse, my favorite variety act.

Oh, that reminds me: it's about time for CPAC 2015, one of the finest weeks in any Liberal's calendar!!!

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, you're saying that Romney doesn't even need Iowa.....I can live with that.

I'm saying the fact that Romney can't win Iowa probably says he's a weak candidate.

Here's the thing. He won in 2012 because everyone else was a joke. He had no serious opponent, but he was slugging it out the whole way with a series of "Not-Romneys" that caught the electorate's eyes.

And despite outspending all his opponents by a huge margin, he really didn't lock it up until late.

Now, he's already got a reputation as a two-time loser, Bush is going to have the whole Bush Dynasty thing going for him and unlimited resources.

In fact, Mitt Romney was mired at a composite of 23% or less for 26 months straight, until March 2012. He won because all of the others we like flavor of the week or month and then fell to the wayside. Remember "Moonbase" Gingrich, "9-9-9" Cain, "$2 gas" crazy eyes Bachmann, "the blahs...." Santorum (don't google that word!), "let em die" Paul..... ahhhh, those were the days.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Iowa Poll

Link? Source?

 

[The Rabbi]

Today's WSJ editorial questions why Mitt would be a better candidate today than he wa 4 years ago. Good point.

 

[nodoginnafight]

He'll have to throw away his flip flops.
Killed him last time ....

 

[Redfish]

Romney would be a very good president. Time will tell if he runs or not.

Hillary would be a terrible president, but she's all the dems have.

 

[Super_Lantern]

What does everyone think of the rumored "three pillar" platform a Romney 2016 campaign will run on? I think the three pillars are (1) battling poverty, (2) something about the middle class, and (3) America looking confident and operating strong in foreign policy

Those in the room told Romney that he needed to outline a clear rationale for getting into the race, and Romney outlined the three issues that were driving him: poverty, foreign affairs, and long-term economic stability.

But nearly an hour of the 90-minute session was devoted to Romney’s past campaign, and what he needs to fix if he runs another. Several were adamant: He had to clean house, and couldn’t rely on the same team as he did last time. Romney agreed, telling the room that he had been led down the wrong path on some things, and his campaign failed to fully articulate his rationale for running.

They urged Romney to be more comfortable in public, to come across like he did in the documentary “MITT,” released last year. Some close to Romney say they’ve seen a looser side to him lately, citing him putting bunny ears over former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown during Governor Charlie Baker’s inauguration.

In private Mitt Romney starting to outline rationale for third presidential campaign - Politics - The Boston Globe

Yes, bunny ears. That's what every campaign needs.

I think you missed the point but go ahead and focus on one line to frame the point out of context

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

So, you're saying that Romney doesn't even need Iowa.....I can live with that.

I'm saying the fact that Romney can't win Iowa probably says he's a weak candidate.

Here's the thing. He won in 2012 because everyone else was a joke. He had no serious opponent, but he was slugging it out the whole way with a series of "Not-Romneys" that caught the electorate's eyes.

And despite outspending all his opponents by a huge margin, he really didn't lock it up until late.

Now, he's already got a reputation as a two-time loser, Bush is going to have the whole Bush Dynasty thing going for him and unlimited resources.

In fact, Mitt Romney was mired at a composite of 23% or less for 26 months straight, until March 2012. He won because all of the others we like flavor of the week or month and then fell to the wayside. Remember "Moonbase" Gingrich, "9-9-9" Cain, "$2 gas" crazy eyes Bachmann, "the blahs...." Santorum (don't google that word!), "let em die" Paul..... ahhhh, those were the days.

It's funny how you put these quotes like they're such off the wall ideas. Gas is at $2, dude. And 9-9-9 is not bad at all in principle. Yes, it was gimmicky otherwise.

As for Iowa, I know the media likes to pretend that it's a be-all; but it's not even close. Yes, candidates want the boost that comes with it. Hillary didn't lose b/c she lost Iowa. She lost Iowa because she lost her footing period. Iowa is finnicky though; especially on the Republican side. It often is far from representative of the states that follow.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Iowa Poll

Link? Source?

Right click the image location. If you need the article, do a search.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Iowa Poll

Link? Source?

Right click the image location. If you need the article, do a search.

It's Gravis.

Are you really that intellectually lazy as to not even take the time to quote your sources or link to sources? Really?

 

[Statistikhengst]

What does everyone think of the rumored "three pillar" platform a Romney 2016 campaign will run on? I think the three pillars are (1) battling poverty, (2) something about the middle class, and (3) America looking confident and operating strong in foreign policy

Those in the room told Romney that he needed to outline a clear rationale for getting into the race, and Romney outlined the three issues that were driving him: poverty, foreign affairs, and long-term economic stability.

But nearly an hour of the 90-minute session was devoted to Romney’s past campaign, and what he needs to fix if he runs another. Several were adamant: He had to clean house, and couldn’t rely on the same team as he did last time. Romney agreed, telling the room that he had been led down the wrong path on some things, and his campaign failed to fully articulate his rationale for running.

They urged Romney to be more comfortable in public, to come across like he did in the documentary “MITT,” released last year. Some close to Romney say they’ve seen a looser side to him lately, citing him putting bunny ears over former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown during Governor Charlie Baker’s inauguration.

In private Mitt Romney starting to outline rationale for third presidential campaign - Politics - The Boston Globe

Yes, bunny ears. That's what every campaign needs.

I think you missed the point but go ahead and focus on one line to frame the point out of context

It was humor. I know, that is a strange concept to Righties...

 

[initforme]

Romney would be a great prez...for the 1 percent. The rest would be expected to sacrifice wholly to protect that 1 percent.... he will not get past that fact.

 

[JoeB131]

I was sort of musing myself with your Iowa rants. Dude, Iowa doesn't decide the winner. They can give whomever a boost. And it's not about being 'entitled,' shmutz.

You're kind of sputtering out. Point is, the republican leadership is kind of considering a second Romney run and the concensus is, 'For the Love of God, Please don't!!"

The WSJ compared him to recycled garbage today.

 

[JoeB131]

In fact, Mitt Romney was mired at a composite of 23% or less for 26 months straight, until March 2012. He won because all of the others we like flavor of the week or month and then fell to the wayside. Remember "Moonbase" Gingrich, "9-9-9" Cain, "$2 gas" crazy eyes Bachmann, "the blahs...." Santorum (don't google that word!), "let em die" Paul..... ahhhh, those were the days.

And this is a good point. In 2012, Romney was probably the best candidate they had. Yes, the least crazy guy the GOP could come up with in 2012 thought he was wearing Magic Underwear and would rule a planet in the afterlife.

This year, they have Christy, Bush, Kasich, Walker and a lot of other guys who aren't completely nuts. And they haven't already lost, twice.