Romney Considering Another Run

[Super_Lantern]

so you dodged the question

No, I confronted it head on.

I asked you how many incumbents have lost in recent history and instead of answering that nearly none have (the truth), you came up with excuses to explain away the "incumbents practically never lose" honest truth

Jeb Bush wouldn't have beaten President Obama in 2012. Neither would have Ted Cruz, or Rand Paul, etc

 

[Vigilante]

Yes, we need a MODERATE, PROGRESSIVE RINO in office....Did someone say Hillary fits that bill?????

 

[hangover]

By the the time of the election, the 114th congress will make it clear that if a con gets in the WH, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, ACA, and aid to the poor will be destroyed. Corporations and the rich will get tax cuts, and the debt will be put on the backs of the middle class and poor. And defense spending will be doubled for the invasion of Iran and N. Korea.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hmmmm, the elections of last november tell a very different story. Sorry, dude, but the american people are not as dumb as you dems and libs think they are (can you say Gruber)

The only thing the elections from last November tell me is that people in the South are stupider than fuck.

But we already knew that.

Let's have an actual national election and not a local one, and then we'll see how it plays out.

I remember in 2006 Hannity saying, just before the election, that it was the most important election of our lifetime.

He stopped saying that quite abruptly, early in November.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Post them.

Poll Romney Tops Hillary Clinton in Iowa RealClearPolitics
Mitt Romney leads new poll. Three things that tells us. video - CSMonitor.com

This is old news because Hillary has already been thrown under the bus for Liz Warren. There might be street democrats that still think Hillary has a chance, but the money men have already made the decision.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hey, maybe Romney and Jeb can split the country club Wall St moderate GOP vote,

and let one of the 21st century Goldwater's get in.

 

[SwimExpert]

I asked you how many incumbents have lost in recent history and instead of answering that nearly none have (the truth), you came up with excuses to explain away the "incumbents practically never lose" honest truth

I'm sorry, I thought I was working with at least a 15 year old level of reasoning. Let me break it down for you in Barney terms....

It doesn't matter how many incumbents have won or lost in "recent" times. That is just numbers. You cannot understand circumstances like this simply by tallying the numbers of a handful of situations. You have to look deeper. Now, this is undoubtedly going to be difficult, especially for a moron like you. But try really hard, mkay?

Let's start back at the beginning. As I pointed out, Romney lost because he was a weak candidate who could not defeat a weak and unpopular President. "Incumbents practically never lose" is not an explanation. It is an excuse. It's a simplistic write-off, and offers correlations as if they implied causation. It does not look at the situation with any depth. It does not actually describe the situation.

On the other hand, what I've provided regarding incumbents in recent times.....that's an analysis. It digs deeper and describes the circumstances particularly. It offers direct and actual causal factors to explain observed phenomenon.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm sorry, I thought I was working with at least a 15 year old level of reasoning. Let me break it down for you in Barney terms....

It doesn't matter how many incumbents have won or lost in "recent" times. That is just numbers. You cannot understand circumstances like this simply by tallying the numbers of a handful of situations. You have to look deeper. Now, this is undoubtedly going to be difficult, especially for a moron like you. But try really hard, mkay?

Here's the thing. I have looked deeper. Since 1900, incumbents were re-elected 15 times. They were defeated 5 times- Taft, Hoover, Ford, Carter and Bush. Of those five we should discount Ford because he was never really elected, he was selected by Congress.

Of the four remaining, THREE of them lost because they had a third party candidacy undercutting their base. Teddy Roosevelt, John Anderson and Ross Perot. Only Reagan BARELY cleared 50%, and it would have been a lot closer if Anderson hadn't been sapping Carter's support.

The only case of an incumbent President getting bounced out in a straight up fight was Hoover, and that guy pretty much had the worst economic crash ever and three years of misery and he called out the Army to attack WWI veterans.

Let's start back at the beginning. As I pointed out, Romney lost because he was a weak candidate who could not defeat a weak and unpopular President. "Incumbents practically never lose" is not an explanation. It is an excuse. It's a simplistic write-off, and offers correlations as if they implied causation. It does not look at the situation with any depth. It does not actually describe the situation.

Romney wasn't a weak candidate, he was an AWFUL candidate. The only thing that kept the zombie of his candidacy shuffling about was that there are so many racists in this country freaking out at the thought of a black guy in the White HOuse.

 

[Mr. H.]

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.

Yeah, the Mom Jeans looked very presidential.

If I want your opinion I'LL ASK FOR IT BROTCH!

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Yeah, the Mom Jeans looked very presidential.

If I want your opinion I'LL ASK FOR IT BROTCH!

Whassup, brotch?!!

 

[Mr. H.]

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.

Yeah, the Mom Jeans looked very presidential.

If I want your opinion I'LL ASK FOR IT BROTCH!

Whassup, brotch?!!

Nuttin', honey.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Yeah, the Mom Jeans looked very presidential.

If I want your opinion I'LL ASK FOR IT BROTCH!

Whassup, brotch?!!

Nuttin', honey.

Dats whut all de brotches say, snookums.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

He was defeated by skin color.

 

[Mr. H.]

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.

Yeah, the Mom Jeans looked very presidential.

If I want your opinion I'LL ASK FOR IT BROTCH!

Whassup, brotch?!!

Nuttin', honey.

Dats whut all de brotches say, snookums.

THEY CALL ME MISTER SNOOKUMS!

 

[Statistikhengst]

You'll always be my drunken bubbele biatch brotch, snookums.

don't you forget it, either, or, or, or, BENGHAZI!

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yes, we need a MODERATE, PROGRESSIVE RINO in office....Did someone say Hillary fits that bill?????

I don't stand with Romney on a host of issues. I don't think he'll fix the system. I think he is the guy who will work best within the system though. And he's the only guy who I relatively trust. Christie, Bush, Rubio, Jingal, Ryan are just second rate a-holes who have no business sniffing the presidency (nor does Hillary and the idiots being offered by the Dems).

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

This is old news because Hillary has already been thrown under the bus for Liz Warren. There might be street democrats that still think Hillary has a chance, but the money men have already made the decision.

Liberal 2016 poll Elizabeth Warren beating Clinton by double digits - CNN.com

That's like a fabricated poll by a group with an agenda. The polls have routinely been showing HC way out in front. There are dark horses like Biden who may pick up momentum; but Dems consider HC to be the safe choice. HC is the only real presidential brand name that they have. Everyone else would surely lose to Romney. This is why so many Dems who don't even like her stand behind her.

 

[HenryBHough]

What a catbird position for Hillary!

She could run as a Democrat - if they "gave her her turn" as Democrats would have you believe they always do (of course they lie).

Or she could run as a Republican- slightly to the right of Comrade Romney.

But don't look for Hillary to play second fiddle (VP) for either party.....

 

[Vigilante]

Yes, we need a MODERATE, PROGRESSIVE RINO in office....Did someone say Hillary fits that bill?????

I don't stand with Romney on a host of issues. I don't think he'll fix the system. I think he is the guy who will work best within the system though. And he's the only guy who I relatively trust. Christie, Bush, Rubio, Jingal, Ryan are just second rate a-holes who have no business sniffing the presidency (nor does Hillary and the idiots being offered by the Dems).

Sorry, my friend, he is RomneyCare, and no matter what he tries to say about being forced to sign it, HE OWNS IT, and is therefore, if anything, what Gruber based Obumblecare on! You don't think the 47%, women in binders, and a dog on the roof won't be dragged out again, by a DemocRAT party that only has a lying Murderer, and mentally unstable woman to rely on?

 

[Toro]

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