Romney Considering Another Run

[TheGreatGatsby]

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

I know you'd like to hang your head on that; but it's not an argument against whether Mitt should run again. The strength of the individual candidates relative to the competition is the issue.

If you look at Cleveland, off the top of my head, he had won the presidency and then lost and then won again. I believe he's the only one who ever did that. But clearly he/ and or his policies was well liked; and he made it back.

Nixon lost. But he was a strong star. He would have won if he had not made the mistake of taking on a burgeoning 'superstar' Kennedy on a televised debate. That and his father paid for a rigged election.

If you look at hte losers, there are plenty of reasons. Hoover was a terrible incumbent for instance. Dewey was going up against a moderate Democrat incumbent who was very well liked. Stevenson going against Ike? Yea, that was a given loss. Jesus would have had a hard time winning that one. I'd have to research the others as history class was a long time ago. But feel free to give any insight.

Now, let's look at Mitt's history/situation; which is what we should be looking at instead of your red herrings.

Mitt is the best established GOP candidate. He has the best resources and network to make it happen. He is the most liked in many categories among dems, independents, and Republicans otherwise known as the general electorate.

Looking at the history, people like to say Mitt 'lost in 08.' The truth of the matter is that he almost displaced the establishment candidate in 08; and if not for the bigoted Huckabee staying in a race he knew he could not win to run interference against Mitt, I'd say he very well may have done it. All the same, 08 had to be considered a relative success. Might he have beaten Obama in 08? He very well may have. He was considered a great candidate whereas McCain was looked at as Bush III; and he still did relatively well.

Then you look at 12, Mitt handily won the GOP nomination. He had Obama on the ropes. And imo, he likely did win that election if you take the ballot stuffing out of the equation.

Nobody is saying that Mitt is a slam dunk. But anyone saying he shouldn't run has an agenda; and you're as transparent as all hell as usual.

 

[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).

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?

Only liberal pundits even bring up 'binders of women.' Was that an awkward statement? Yes. But was he not doing the right thing? Yes, he was. For you to make an issue of it is ridiculous. I'm not familiar with your posts b/c I haven't been in political forums much lately. Are you liberal?

I admit that the 47 percent comment gave Obama some fodder. Mitt should have said what he said but not put a number on it. But was he wrong, really? That's debatable. I'd submit that responsible people typically vote. The novelty of voting 'black' won't be there going forward. And the novelty of voting 'woman' won't be as much for Hillary. So, what percent of voters (not the non-voters) want to do something about all the waste? The 47 percent could actually be a positive for Mitt going forward as that is in the back of people's minds. But Mitt shouldn't go out and hammer that issue and appear uncompassionate.

Dog on the roof? Give me a break. You have to be Democrat if you think that is anything. For fuck's sake, Hillary has skeletons that make that look like a fucking day at Disneyland.

 

[Nyvin]

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

Looking at the history, people like to say Mitt 'lost in 08.' The truth of the matter is that he almost displaced the establishment candidate in 08; and if not for the bigoted Huckabee staying in a race he knew he could not win to run interference against Mitt, I'd say he very well may have done it. All the same, 08 had to be considered a relative success. Might he have beaten Obama in 08? He very well may have. He was considered a great candidate whereas McCain was looked at as Bush III; and he still did relatively well.

Then you look at 12, Mitt handily won the GOP nomination. He had Obama on the ropes. And imo, he likely did win that election if you take the ballot stuffing out of the equation.

Nobody is saying that Mitt is a slam dunk. But anyone saying he shouldn't run has an agenda; and you're as transparent as all hell as usual.

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.

Ballot stuffing? Really? The election wasn't even close, Romney would've had to win Colorado and the 3 other closer states. Obama won Colorado by 137,858 votes. Stuffing the ballots with 137,858 votes would be one of the biggest scandals in the history of the nation. Nevermind the fact that Obama won the national vote by 5 million.

Edit - To take this further, in order to win Romney would've had to win Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado....in order for your "ballot stuffing" crap to be true that'd have to be in the range of 527,742 "fake votes" that won Obama the election...since just winning 1 of the 4 would push him over 270. You would need a fricking ARMY of insiders to do that kind of fraud....

It's hopeless dude, Obama won 2012 whether you like it or not.

 

[Synthaholic]

Mitt is the best established GOP candidate. He has the best resources and network to make it happen.

That's false. The Bush family connections are unrivaled. Even the Clintons take a backseat to the Bush family.

Mitt doesn't have a ton of political connections because he's only been an elected official for 4 years in his entire life. And he was a Republican in Massachusetts. All Mitt's connections are through Wall Street and the Mormon Church.

 

[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?

Only liberal pundits even bring up 'binders of women.' Was that an awkward statement? Yes. But was he not doing the right thing? Yes, he was. For you to make an issue of it is ridiculous. I'm not familiar with your posts b/c I haven't been in political forums much lately. Are you liberal?

I admit that the 47 percent comment gave Obama some fodder. Mitt should have said what he said but not put a number on it. But was he wrong, really? That's debatable. I'd submit that responsible people typically vote. The novelty of voting 'black' won't be there going forward. And the novelty of voting 'woman' won't be as much for Hillary. So, what percent of voters (not the non-voters) want to do something about all the waste? The 47 percent could actually be a positive for Mitt going forward as that is in the back of people's minds. But Mitt shouldn't go out and hammer that issue and appear uncompassionate.

Dog on the roof? Give me a break. You have to be Democrat if you think that is anything. For fuck's sake, Hillary has skeletons that make that look like a fucking day at Disneyland.

I'm the farthest from a liberal on this forum, I just KNOW the liberal mind, and if it worked, or they believed it worked, they will use it again! It will all be PERSONAL ATTACKS as subversives can't stand on policy! They are good at attacks, and with a LAP DOG MSM to get their HATE out, it's easy to see where the LOW INFORMATION VOTERS go....just an observation!

 

[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 fucking 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 fucking 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.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I'm the farthest from a liberal on this forum, I just KNOW the liberal mind, and if it worked, or they believed it worked, they will use it again! It will all be PERSONAL ATTACKS as subversives can't stand on policy! They are good at attacks, and with a LAP DOG MSM to get their HATE out, it's easy to see where the LOW INFORMATION VOTERS go....just an observation!

Okay__ The MSM is against any GOP candidate, then. Correct? Can you imagine the shit they're going to dig up on Bush or Christie? They'll be blown out of the water before they even hit the ground running.

The fact that the MSM had to hang their hats on elevators, dogs and binders shows just how desperate they were. It also frankly shows how Mitt is a squeaky clean person that actually lives his religion. If the MSM tries to play those cards again, people will just say, meh, this is all you got? The MSM will not have as much power as before. Mitt's remained in the public conciousness and only built good will in that time.

 

[Nyvin]

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 fucking 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 fucking 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.

Okay, even looking past the absurdity of the election being rigged in the first place...you'd have to accept that if the Democrats are able to do it then the Republicans must be just as capable of doing the same thing and have just as much vested interest in doing so. In fact considering that Republicans controlled the state governments in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia it would actually be even easier for them to do any stuffing of ballots.

In order for your ballot stuffing to be true not only would the Democrats have to have at least 527,742 fraud votes to win, they'd ALSO have to have enough fraud votes to overcome any fraud votes Republicans throw out. Unless you're saying the GOP is totally inept (because the argument that the GOP doesn't commit crimes is just plain laughable...look where Bob Mcconnell is now...) and the Democrats are just somehow masterminds then you're argument is moot.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Mitt is the best established GOP candidate. He has the best resources and network to make it happen.

That's false. The Bush family connections are unrivaled. Even the Clintons take a backseat to the Bush family.

Mitt doesn't have a ton of political connections because he's only been an elected official for 4 years in his entire life. And he was a Republican in Massachusetts. All Mitt's connections are through Wall Street and the Mormon Church.

I would argue that the discrepancy between the Bushes and Clintons campaign funds was more of Republican vs. Democrat discrepancy. I would also argue that through various means (including so-called illegal overseas funds), the Dems have closed that gap. Now, do you really think that Jeb has access to more money than Mitt 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.

 

[Vigilante]

I'm the farthest from a liberal on this forum, I just KNOW the liberal mind, and if it worked, or they believed it worked, they will use it again! It will all be PERSONAL ATTACKS as subversives can't stand on policy! They are good at attacks, and with a LAP DOG MSM to get their HATE out, it's easy to see where the LOW INFORMATION VOTERS go....just an observation!

Okay__ The MSM is against any GOP candidate, then. Correct? Can you imagine the shit they're going to dig up on Bush or Christie? They'll be blown out of the water before they even hit the ground running.

The fact that the MSM had to hang their hats on elevators, dogs and binders shows just how desperate they were. It also frankly shows how Mitt is a squeaky clean person that actually lives his religion. If the MSM tries to play those cards again, people will just say, meh, this is all you got? The MSM will not have as much power as before. Mitt's remained in the public conciousness and only built good will in that time.

He's a slow moving target, they didn't use his religion yet as a major source of personal attacks, and Mormonism is an easy one to bash. They'll go back to his 1% status, and if I could find that 2002 speech of his, the opposition will simply shout about his FLIP FLOPS, and his attacking Obamacare when he signed a bill just as onerous! Mitt might make a good president, BUT not in this market...we NEED an UNKNOWN, like the obomanation was, with NO BACKGROUND that a hook can be tossed into.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Okay, even looking past the absurdity of the election being rigged in the first place...you'd have to accept that if the Democrats are able to do it then the Republicans must be just as capable of doing the same thing and have just as much vested interest in doing so. In fact considering that Republicans controlled the state governments in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia it would actually be even easier for them to do any stuffing of ballots.

In order for your ballot stuffing to be true not only would the Democrats have to have at least 527,742 fraud votes to win, they'd ALSO have to have enough fraud votes to overcome any fraud votes Republicans throw out. Unless you're saying the GOP is totally inept (because the argument that the GOP doesn't commit crimes is just plain laughable...look where Bob Mcconnell is now...) and the Democrats are just somehow masterminds then you're argument is moot.

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.

 

[Lakhota]

Just imagine Ann Romney as First Lady.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

He's a slow moving target, they didn't use his religion yet as a major source of personal attacks, and Mormonism is an easy one to bash. They'll go back to his 1% status, and if I could find that 2002 speech of his, the opposition will simply shout about his FLIP FLOPS, and his attacking Obamacare when he signed a bill just as onerous! Mitt might make a good president, BUT not in this market...we NEED an UNKNOWN, like the obomanation was, with NO BACKGROUND that a hook can be tossed into.

Mormonism is not easy to bash. That's a myth. Think of all the Mormons you've ever known. In most cases, they were probably great people and probably treated you better than the average person does. The MSM knows that Mormonism probably is even a positive check for Mitt for that reason. Do you really think they would have held it in reserve otherwise? Not a freaking chance, dude.

Flip flops is something that will be an issue for any candidate. I don't think they're an exclusive province of Mitt.I don't honestly see how you can make that an issue.

If Mitt has a 'big' weakness, it is his one percent status. You're right there. But guess what? That's every candidate. Of course, Mitt is in a much higher echelon than even the rank and file; but Mitt has actually sacrificed great riches to 'serve his country' if you really dig into it. I think more and more, people get this; and he is becoming more and more relatable.

And you're living in a fantasy world if you think this is coming along: "we NEED an UNKNOWN, like the obomanation was, with NO BACKGROUND that a hook can be tossed into."

BTW, Obama wasn't a great unknown either. The media swept it all under the rug; but people know who he was and what he was about. They might have done that for the Dems; they won't do it for a GOP candidate.

 

[HenryBHough]

Mormonism does not in any way disqualify Romney.

It's his liberalism that does.

Massachusetts.

Romneycare.

Prototype for Obamacare.

Do the math.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Just imagine Ann Romney as First Lady.

I could honestly care less who the first lady is; but what am I supposed to be imagining? A good hearted, inspirational person? Oh, the humanity!

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Mormonism does not in any way disqualify Romney.

It's his liberalism that does.

Massachusetts.

Romneycare.

Prototype for Obamacare.

Do the math.

In the GOP primaries, his liberalism is at issue. In a national election, you want a candidate who appears closer to the center.

BTW, you misrepresent the math. Romneycare at state level and Obamacare at the federal level are two wholly different animals; and Romney has spoken out against Obamacare in no uncertain terms. However, if there is a misperception that Romney is for Obamacare, that can only help him imo.

 

[Vigilante]

He's a slow moving target, they didn't use his religion yet as a major source of personal attacks, and Mormonism is an easy one to bash. They'll go back to his 1% status, and if I could find that 2002 speech of his, the opposition will simply shout about his FLIP FLOPS, and his attacking Obamacare when he signed a bill just as onerous! Mitt might make a good president, BUT not in this market...we NEED an UNKNOWN, like the obomanation was, with NO BACKGROUND that a hook can be tossed into.

Mormonism is not easy to bash. That's a myth. Think of all the Mormons you've ever known. In most cases, they were probably great people and probably treated you better than the average person does. The MSM knows that Mormonism probably is even a positive check for Mitt for that reason. Do you really think they would have held it in reserve otherwise? Not a freaking chance, dude.

Flip flops is something that will be an issue for any candidate. I don't think they're an exclusive province of Mitt.I don't honestly see how you can make that an issue.

If Mitt has a 'big' weakness, it is his one percent status. You're right there. But guess what? That's every candidate. Of course, Mitt is in a much higher echelon than even the rank and file; but Mitt has actually sacrificed great riches to 'serve his country' if you really dig into it. I think more and more, people get this; and he is becoming more and more relatable.

And you're living in a fantasy world if you think this is coming along: "we NEED an UNKNOWN, like the obomanation was, with NO BACKGROUND that a hook can be tossed into."

BTW, Obama wasn't a great unknown either. The media swept it all under the rug; but people know who he was and what he was about. They might have done that for the Dems; they won't do it for a GOP candidate.

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!

 

[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

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.