Would you vote for Romney in 2016?

[Statistikhengst]

You had a man who generated wealth for himself and many others vs a guy whose legacy is affirmative action and the people elected the affirmative action guy? Even after he kept the economy in the hole? That just demonstrates how stupid and easily duped Americans have become.

Obama could not have won without the black vote,fraudulent and otherwise. Yet how much better off are blacks under Obama? They aren't. They are worse off. But they'd vote for him again.
Jews the same thing.

And then Righties wonder why Blacks and Jews and Latinos and American Indians and Asians and Pacific Islanders and Mitt Romney's "binders full of women" show so little interest in the GOP..... carry on, Rabbi, carry on.

Delish.

No, the answer is obvious. People who vote for Obama want free shit. Some of us Jews wised up. Obama's take of the Jewish vote was down severely from the first to the second election.
And then there are idiots like claiming to be Jewish who still support that asshole.

No, it was not.

2008, Jewish Vote:

Obama 78 / McCain 21 - Margin: Obama +56

2012, Jewish Vote:

Obama 69 / Romney 31 - Margin: Obama +38

This means that circa on in every 10 Jews who voted changed their preference between 2008 and 2012, making for a 20% shift.

Interestingly enough, the Jewish Vote statistic for 2004 lies between these two:

Kerry 74 / Bush (43) 25 - Margin: Kerry +50

Funny how you think that Jews from the Left are somehow not Jews.

Only an arrogant piece of shit like you could screw up a simple statistic. Obama got 78% of the Jewish vote in 2008 and 69% of the Jewish vote in 2012. His support among Jews was less.
You assume the exact same people voted in both elections. Just like you probably assume the exact same people in the lowest percentile of earners remain there for 30 years. In both cases you are full of shit.

You missed the point (as usual). You said that Obama's take of the Jewish vote was " down severely" from 2008 to 2012. Well, it wasn't. It was less, but it wasn't severely less. In order to get a shift of 20%, only 1 in 10 people must decide to change their preference. Of course, for people with intelligence, that doesn't mean that EXACTLY the same people vote in every election, but I should only need to explain that to little kids. Are you a little kid?

But the insult you just hurled only shows how personally you take everything, well, because, well...

Background here:

No, honey, you don't get it. No one shoots skeet like that. It is a physical impossibility. It's like being in the batter's box and holding the bat vertical to the ground. Doesn't happen.
Again, you are a totally pathetic ****-lapping bit of moldy protoplasm pretending you know something when you reveal your ignorance with every post. Give it up. You've been pwned.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Obama was reelected mostly because of the Hispanic and asian voting blocs voting 63 and 70+ percent in his favor.

The period of tribal politics are here.

If 60% of whites came out in 1980 for a president = 400 elv.
Today 60% of whites come out and we get the numbers above = losing the election.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I picked "No Romney is not conservative enough".

Romney didn't win the Republican nomination for president, he bought it. He's not the only one; the general trend in primaries is whoever spends the most money gets it. Why anyone who looks at the candidate's positions and track record would vote for Romney is beyond me. In 2012, he was by far the weakest candidate in the field during the primary, and had no substantial differences with Obama in the general.

Why do people plug Romney? Do you actually think he's the best person for the job?

He was THE BEST QUALIFIED POTUS CANDIDATE in decades.

He was the best individual for the job. He was the finest individual to have run in decades. He was/is a WORLD CLASS BUSINESS TURNAROUND EXPERT.

When you have a sick child you choose the best surgeon no matter their politics.

We had/have a sick country and Romney is a SUPERSTAR at turning around large organizations.

DUH!

We could have hired him to play for OUR team!

Those who lament his past business activities might take a lesson from the world of MLB.

What?

You mean to say there is something we political types can learn from the highly paid millionaires who play baseball?

Yes.

When you face a team with a superstar player who always has a big game against your faves and is a hated but respected rival player, the thing SMART teams do is trade for that player so he will be scoring runs for YOU as well as making sure he can't continue helping to beat your club!

Mitt Romney is the MVP player on the other team YOU can get to pklay for you!

Well, that was the thought in 2012.

We could have hired THE BEST business leader possible to get America back on track.

If he did that would you really care if he took some time to finally realize he couldn't abide abortion any longer as Gov. of Mass?

Political elites picked Romney as the Republican nominee and helped him win that position for the express purpose of him losing to Obama.

Look at it from a strategic standpoint. Romney was portrayed as the crooked, greedy investor who made millions off the backs of the working class. Obama was sold as the working man's candidate, he was "one of us." While Saint Barack wanted to make sure everyone had access to affordable healthcare, the biggest pillar in the campaign of evil Romney was repealing Obamacare. Every debate, every ad, every soundbite, every appearance--let's undo Obama's work. In many of the statements he made where he wasn't directly attacking Obama, those not completely sold on voting for Romney still picked up the "I hate Obama" undertones.

Romney's political image was carefully crafted to be everything that people leaning even slightly to the left would hate. While Obama played the part of Messiah, Romney was cast as the Anti-Christ. It wasn't necessarily overt, and this wasn't done full-on from the beginning, but having followed the election from start to finish, this is the message the 2012 presidential race was meant to convey. You probably don't see it that way; you come across--at least to me--as someone who is skeptical of Obama and respects rather than abhors financial success. There is a prejudice inherent to all people that causes us to view the same facts in a completely different light.

For example, you say that "Romney is a SUPERSTAR at turning around large organizations", but this isn't how he was thought of at all. Gingrich established Romney's business record as that of a "corporate raider" early on in the primary, it stuck with him throughout the general, and there was no substantial effort made by him to correct it. If he had, some people might've supported him, while others would view his defensiveness as further self-incrimination.

Considering all of this, I stand by my earlier assertion that Romney was the worst of the Republicans running in 2012. Whoever our candidate is in 2016, it needs to be someone without all the baggage and who doesn't sound like a radical leftist caricature of a Republican.

Well, actually, I disagree.

First, I don't think that Romney was a bad candidate. The GOP team he put together (or had put together) still got him the 2nd highest raw vote total that any republican presidential candidate has ever received, behind George W. Bush's total from 2004.

Only, the Obama team was superior in terms of organization and the Democrats have built a coalition that is going to be very, very hard for the GOP to break as long as GOP whackos keep hating on women, gays, blacks, oh well, I think you get the idea.

Another thing that a lot of Lefties say is that Romney would have been a terrible president. He would probably have been an average president, but would have likely destroyed any gains in health care reform,and people decided that they wanted that health care reform.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So what do blacks want? Legalization of their right to kill, rape, loot and destroy? What would make these people happy???

Women? I believe in birth control and I feel that the gop goes to far. But free stuff? Is this really a reason to attack the gop?

Gays. They make up 2% of the population.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Obama was reelected mostly because of the Hispanic and asian voting blocs voting 63 and 70+ percent in his favor.

The period of tribal politics are here.

If 60% of whites came out in 1980 for a president = 400 elv.
Today 60% of whites come out and we get the numbers above = losing the election.

Faulty stats.

Obama got 71% of the Latino (Hispanic) vote in 2012. That's a 4 point jump over 2008.
Obama got 73% of the Asian vote in 2012. That's an 11 point jump over 2008.

President Exit Polls - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com

But your observation about the shrinking white vote is indeed quite on target, imo.

 

[The Rabbi]

You had a man who generated wealth for himself and many others vs a guy whose legacy is affirmative action and the people elected the affirmative action guy? Even after he kept the economy in the hole? That just demonstrates how stupid and easily duped Americans have become.

Obama could not have won without the black vote,fraudulent and otherwise. Yet how much better off are blacks under Obama? They aren't. They are worse off. But they'd vote for him again.
Jews the same thing.

And then Righties wonder why Blacks and Jews and Latinos and American Indians and Asians and Pacific Islanders and Mitt Romney's "binders full of women" show so little interest in the GOP..... carry on, Rabbi, carry on.

Delish.

No, the answer is obvious. People who vote for Obama want free shit. Some of us Jews wised up. Obama's take of the Jewish vote was down severely from the first to the second election.
And then there are idiots like claiming to be Jewish who still support that asshole.

No, it was not.

2008, Jewish Vote:

Obama 78 / McCain 21 - Margin: Obama +56

2012, Jewish Vote:

Obama 69 / Romney 31 - Margin: Obama +38

This means that circa on in every 10 Jews who voted changed their preference between 2008 and 2012, making for a 20% shift.

Interestingly enough, the Jewish Vote statistic for 2004 lies between these two:

Kerry 74 / Bush (43) 25 - Margin: Kerry +50

Funny how you think that Jews from the Left are somehow not Jews.

Only an arrogant piece of shit like you could screw up a simple statistic. Obama got 78% of the Jewish vote in 2008 and 69% of the Jewish vote in 2012. His support among Jews was less.
You assume the exact same people voted in both elections. Just like you probably assume the exact same people in the lowest percentile of earners remain there for 30 years. In both cases you are full of shit.

You missed the point (as usual). You said that Obama's take of the Jewish vote was " down severely" from 2008 to 2012. Well, it wasn't. It was less, but it wasn't severely less. In order to get a shift of 20%, only 1 in 10 people must decide to change their preference. Of course, for people with intelligence, that doesn't mean that EXACTLY the same people vote in every election, but I should only need to explain that to little kids. Are you a little kid?

But the insult you just hurled only shows how personally you take everything, well, because, well...

Background here:

No, honey, you don't get it. No one shoots skeet like that. It is a physical impossibility. It's like being in the batter's box and holding the bat vertical to the ground. Doesn't happen.
Again, you are a totally pathetic ****-lapping bit of moldy protoplasm pretending you know something when you reveal your ignorance with every post. Give it up. You've been pwned.

Wow, butthurt much?
Fwiw, the batter is not holding the bat perpendicular to the ground. Looks like you just got pwned again, asshole.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Judicial appointments alone – particularly to the Supreme Court – is reason enough to vote against a given republican candidate for president; the likes of Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are evidence of that.

you tell em Jones....lets get Judges in there as far left as you are....that will show us....

 

[Statistikhengst]

You had a man who generated wealth for himself and many others vs a guy whose legacy is affirmative action and the people elected the affirmative action guy? Even after he kept the economy in the hole? That just demonstrates how stupid and easily duped Americans have become.

Obama could not have won without the black vote,fraudulent and otherwise. Yet how much better off are blacks under Obama? They aren't. They are worse off. But they'd vote for him again.
Jews the same thing.

And then Righties wonder why Blacks and Jews and Latinos and American Indians and Asians and Pacific Islanders and Mitt Romney's "binders full of women" show so little interest in the GOP..... carry on, Rabbi, carry on.

Delish.

No, the answer is obvious. People who vote for Obama want free shit. Some of us Jews wised up. Obama's take of the Jewish vote was down severely from the first to the second election.
And then there are idiots like claiming to be Jewish who still support that asshole.

No, it was not.

2008, Jewish Vote:

Obama 78 / McCain 21 - Margin: Obama +56

2012, Jewish Vote:

Obama 69 / Romney 31 - Margin: Obama +38

This means that circa on in every 10 Jews who voted changed their preference between 2008 and 2012, making for a 20% shift.

Interestingly enough, the Jewish Vote statistic for 2004 lies between these two:

Kerry 74 / Bush (43) 25 - Margin: Kerry +50

Funny how you think that Jews from the Left are somehow not Jews.

Only an arrogant piece of shit like you could screw up a simple statistic. Obama got 78% of the Jewish vote in 2008 and 69% of the Jewish vote in 2012. His support among Jews was less.
You assume the exact same people voted in both elections. Just like you probably assume the exact same people in the lowest percentile of earners remain there for 30 years. In both cases you are full of shit.

You missed the point (as usual). You said that Obama's take of the Jewish vote was " down severely" from 2008 to 2012. Well, it wasn't. It was less, but it wasn't severely less. In order to get a shift of 20%, only 1 in 10 people must decide to change their preference. Of course, for people with intelligence, that doesn't mean that EXACTLY the same people vote in every election, but I should only need to explain that to little kids. Are you a little kid?

But the insult you just hurled only shows how personally you take everything, well, because, well...

Background here:

No, honey, you don't get it. No one shoots skeet like that. It is a physical impossibility. It's like being in the batter's box and holding the bat vertical to the ground. Doesn't happen.
Again, you are a totally pathetic ****-lapping bit of moldy protoplasm pretending you know something when you reveal your ignorance with every post. Give it up. You've been pwned.

Wow, butthurt much?
Fwiw, the batter is not holding the bat perpendicular to the ground. Looks like you just got pwned again, asshole.

Yes, he is. You are the one who is butthurt. Nice try, fake Rabbi.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

"No, proven loser."

Better reason though he's a uber wealthy who has nothing in common with the average American and is likely looking at the Presidency more as a way to accrue even more wealth doing favors for special interests.

I hate Romney and all, but I just don't get that vibe.

He doesn't need the presidency to accrue wealth. Look at his history, it's a fact. The man's King Midas, lol.

Romney would be taking a pay cut to be president.

Base pay is unimportant, it's the perks that are sought after.

Romney was never in it for the money or perks. He has all the money he and his family will ever need.

Why is it so hard to believe someone would run for president because he wants to help the country?

Mitt is a good and decent man. His wealth wasn't handed to him.

 

[Machaut]

Well, actually, I disagree.

First, I don't think that Romney was a bad candidate. The GOP team he put together (or had put together) still got him the 2nd highest raw vote total that any republican presidential candidate has ever received, behind George W. Bush's total from 2004.

In terms of effectiveness, isn't it better to look at the percentage of the vote each candidate got, as well as voter turnout? It hardly seems accurate to look at the vote totals, considering the U.S. hasn't had a static population level over time.

Only, the Obama team was superior in terms of organization and the Democrats have built a coalition that is going to be very, very hard for the GOP to break as long as GOP whackos keep hating on women, gays, blacks, oh well, I think you get the idea.

Exactly! However, in my opinion it's not so much that "GOP whackos keep hating on" all of those groups as it is that we allow ourselves to be portrayed that way. Neither group is innately hostile to any measurable voting demographic (so far as I'm aware), it's just that Democrats have mastered the art of political spin and Republicans, by and large, have not.

Democratic Senator Kay Hagan, for example, is a former Sunday school teacher--however, as a woman, she can't be assailed with that "war on women, evil Christian patriarchy" garbage that gets flung at religious Republican candidates, most of whom tend to be male. There are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle that have issues with some or all of Obamacare, but when Mitt "Richie Rich" Romney strolls onto the national stage and says he wants to repeal Obamacare, that doesn't really have the same credibility and weight with people as it does when actual doctors like Ron Paul or Ben Carson say it. The one area that Republicans seem to have been improving on is the race factor; Carson, along with Allen West and Herman Cain, are popular among Republican voters because they can criticize Obama without being labelled as a racist.

These are tactics that the NAACP unabashedly employed during the Civil Rights Movement. For example:

Montgomery Bus Boycott - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Black activists had begun to build a case to challenge state bus segregation laws around the arrest of a 15-year-old girl, Claudette Colvin, a student at Booker T. Washington High School in Montgomery. On March 2, 1955, Colvin was handcuffed, arrested and forcibly removed from a public bus when she refused to give up her seat to a white man.

Some action against segregation had been in the works for some time before Parks' arrest, under the leadership of E. D. Nixon, president of the local NAACP chapter and a member of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. Nixon intended that her arrest be a test case to allow Montgomery's black citizens to challenge segregation on the city's public buses. With this goal, community leaders had been waiting for the right person to be arrested, a person who would anger the black community into action, who would agree to test the segregation laws in court, and who, most importantly, was "above reproach". When Colvin was arrested in March 1955, Nixon thought he had found the perfect person, but the teenager turned out to be pregnant. Nixon later explained, "I had to be sure that I had somebody I could win with." Parks was a good candidate because of her employment and marital status, along with her good standing in the community.

Romney was the Republican presidential candidate equivalent of the NAACP fielding a teen single mom as the face of the Civil Rights Movement in Alabama. The NAACP was smart enough to back away from that one early on, but Republicans, unfortunately, didn't have the same wisdom.

Another thing that a lot of Lefties say is that Romney would have been a terrible president. He would probably have been an average president, but would have likely destroyed any gains in health care reform,and people decided that they wanted that health care reform.

I have to agree with this.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No. He is the quintessential plutocrat.

And Liz Warren isnt?
Romney at least knows what it means to meet a payroll every month. When did Warren or Hillary ever meet a payroll?

What 'payroll'? Cutting bonus checks for shipping American jobs overseas?

I'd wonder if you had any connection to reality whatsoever. But I already know the answer to that one.

Rabbi, in typical Rabbi fashion, ignored the opportunity to prove the allegation false and defaulted to an attack on the person.

There is only one reason for this behavior, Rabbi cannot prove Romney has not shipped American jobs overseas.

Romney s Bain Capital invested in companies that moved jobs overseas - The Washington Post

But, as can be seen from the link above, more proof that Rabbi is a liar (or at best an ignorant partisan fool).

You're such an ass. Not only do you miss the point of the exchange, you default to merely bad mouthing me, in a not terriblly original way.
To recap since you're kind of stupid and have trouble paying attention: I made the claim that one area where Romney is a superior candidate is that he has experience meeting payrolls, something the Dems lack. Assaholic chimes in with his usual stupidity and ignroes that and defaults to the bumper sticker "Mitt sent jobs offshore." That deserves no response as it wasn't responsive to my post, nor is it particularly true, nor is it relevant.
You chime in like a pig in an operating room and accuse me of failing to answer the accusation. Of course Assoholic's "accusation" wasn't directed at anything I had written. So I had no need to defend or disprove it.
Carry on, Cocksucker.

Unlike you I have never sucked a cock (or a Koch, or a warrior). Rabbi, I know that you know that I know you're a liar, an asshole, a partisan and a homophobe, as well as a double digit IQ under 90. I'd pity you, but you and PC are such despicable people I can't bring myself to give a shit about your kind.

 

[Statistikhengst]

My answers in between:

Well, actually, I disagree.

First, I don't think that Romney was a bad candidate. The GOP team he put together (or had put together) still got him the 2nd highest raw vote total that any republican presidential candidate has ever received, behind George W. Bush's total from 2004.

In terms of effectiveness, isn't it better to look at the percentage of the vote each candidate got, as well as voter turnout? It hardly seems accurate to look at the vote totals, considering the U.S. hasn't had a static population level over time.

Yes, the top line percentages and the margins are indeed more important. Romney lost to Obama: 51.01% to 47.15% in 2012. Margin: Obama +3.86%

John Kerry (D) had a higher losing percentage in 2004: 48.26%

And George W. Bush also had a higher losing percentage in 2000: 47.87%
And Gerald R. Ford has a higher losing percentage in 1976: 48.01%

Still, Romney's showing is better than McCain from 2008, Bush 41 from 1992, Bob Dole from 1996, Barry Goldwater from 1964, Thomas Dewey from 1948 and 1944, Wendell Wilkie from 1940, Alf Landon in 1936, Herbert Hoover in 1932, Charles Hughes in 1916 and both Taft and Roosevelt in 1912.

This means that of the 14 GOP candidates since 1912 who lost the national election in both the popular vote and in the EC, Mitt Romney scored the second highest GOP losing percentage, after Gerald R. Ford.

So, yeah, Romney did better than people realize. But as John King from CNN said: "a close 2nd is still 2nd".

Only, the Obama team was superior in terms of organization and the Democrats have built a coalition that is going to be very, very hard for the GOP to break as long as GOP whackos keep hating on women, gays, blacks, oh well, I think you get the idea.

Exactly! However, in my opinion it's not so much that "GOP whackos keep hating on" all of those groups as it is that we allow ourselves to be portrayed that way. Neither group is innately hostile to any measurable voting demographic (so far as I'm aware), it's just that Democrats have mastered the art of political spin and Republicans, by and large, have not..

Purrhaps..

Another thing that a lot of Lefties say is that Romney would have been a terrible president. He would probably have been an average president, but would have likely destroyed any gains in health care reform,and people decided that they wanted that health care reform.

I have to agree with this.

 

[Kondor3]

No...

If he was dumb enough to get caught playing Mister Forty-Seven Percent...

He's not smart enough to run the country.

 

[Jroc]

I picked "No Romney is not conservative enough".

Romney didn't win the Republican nomination for president, he bought it. He's not the only one; the general trend in primaries is whoever spends the most money gets it. Why anyone who looks at the candidate's positions and track record would vote for Romney is beyond me. In 2012, he was by far the weakest candidate in the field during the primary, and had no substantial differences with Obama in the general.

Why do people plug Romney? Do you actually think he's the best person for the job?

He was THE BEST QUALIFIED POTUS CANDIDATE in decades.

He was the best individual for the job. He was the finest individual to have run in decades. He was/is a WORLD CLASS BUSINESS TURNAROUND EXPERT.

When you have a sick child you choose the best surgeon no matter their politics.

We had/have a sick country and Romney is a SUPERSTAR at turning around large organizations.

DUH!

We could have hired him to play for OUR team!

Those who lament his past business activities might take a lesson from the world of MLB.

What?

You mean to say there is something we political types can learn from the highly paid millionaires who play baseball?

Yes.

When you face a team with a superstar player who always has a big game against your faves and is a hated but respected rival player, the thing SMART teams do is trade for that player so he will be scoring runs for YOU as well as making sure he can't continue helping to beat your club!

Mitt Romney is the MVP player on the other team YOU can get to pklay for you!

Well, that was the thought in 2012.

We could have hired THE BEST business leader possible to get America back on track.

If he did that would you really care if he took some time to finally realize he couldn't abide abortion any longer as Gov. of Mass?

Political elites picked Romney as the Republican nominee and helped him win that position for the express purpose of him losing to Obama.

Look at it from a strategic standpoint. Romney was portrayed as the crooked, greedy investor who made millions off the backs of the working class. Obama was sold as the working man's candidate, he was "one of us." While Saint Barack wanted to make sure everyone had access to affordable healthcare, the biggest pillar in the campaign of evil Romney was repealing Obamacare. Every debate, every ad, every soundbite, every appearance--let's undo Obama's work. In many of the statements he made where he wasn't directly attacking Obama, those not completely sold on voting for Romney still picked up the "I hate Obama" undertones.

Romney's political image was carefully crafted to be everything that people leaning even slightly to the left would hate. While Obama played the part of Messiah, Romney was cast as the Anti-Christ. It wasn't necessarily overt, and this wasn't done full-on from the beginning, but having followed the election from start to finish, this is the message the 2012 presidential race was meant to convey. You probably don't see it that way; you come across--at least to me--as someone who is skeptical of Obama and respects rather than abhors financial success. There is a prejudice inherent to all people that causes us to view the same facts in a completely different light.

For example, you say that "Romney is a SUPERSTAR at turning around large organizations", but this isn't how he was thought of at all. Gingrich established Romney's business record as that of a "corporate raider" early on in the primary, it stuck with him throughout the general, and there was no substantial effort made by him to correct it. If he had, some people might've supported him, while others would view his defensiveness as further self-incrimination.

Considering all of this, I stand by my earlier assertion that Romney was the worst of the Republicans running in 2012. Whoever our candidate is in 2016, it needs to be someone without all the baggage and who doesn't sound like a radical leftist caricature of a Republican.

Well, actually, I disagree.

First, I don't think that Romney was a bad candidate. The GOP team he put together (or had put together) still got him the 2nd highest raw vote total that any republican presidential candidate has ever received, behind George W. Bush's total from 2004.

Only, the Obama team was superior in terms of organization and the Democrats have built a coalition that is going to be very, very hard for the GOP to break as long as GOP whackos keep hating on women, gays, blacks, oh well, I think you get the idea.

Another thing that a lot of Lefties say is that Romney would have been a terrible president. He would probably have been an average president, but would have likely destroyed any gains in health care reform,and people decided that they wanted that health care reform.

No matter how you try to make your comments seem intelligent, the brain dead, liberal, stupidity usually comes out proving that in all actuality, you are not really a thinking person when it comes to politics. You should be embarrassed to post just drivel. I'm embarrassed for you actually. You're no better than the rest of the leftist clowns who can't think for themselves

 

[Statistikhengst]

I picked "No Romney is not conservative enough".

Romney didn't win the Republican nomination for president, he bought it. He's not the only one; the general trend in primaries is whoever spends the most money gets it. Why anyone who looks at the candidate's positions and track record would vote for Romney is beyond me. In 2012, he was by far the weakest candidate in the field during the primary, and had no substantial differences with Obama in the general.

Why do people plug Romney? Do you actually think he's the best person for the job?

He was THE BEST QUALIFIED POTUS CANDIDATE in decades.

He was the best individual for the job. He was the finest individual to have run in decades. He was/is a WORLD CLASS BUSINESS TURNAROUND EXPERT.

When you have a sick child you choose the best surgeon no matter their politics.

We had/have a sick country and Romney is a SUPERSTAR at turning around large organizations.

DUH!

We could have hired him to play for OUR team!

Those who lament his past business activities might take a lesson from the world of MLB.

What?

You mean to say there is something we political types can learn from the highly paid millionaires who play baseball?

Yes.

When you face a team with a superstar player who always has a big game against your faves and is a hated but respected rival player, the thing SMART teams do is trade for that player so he will be scoring runs for YOU as well as making sure he can't continue helping to beat your club!

Mitt Romney is the MVP player on the other team YOU can get to pklay for you!

Well, that was the thought in 2012.

We could have hired THE BEST business leader possible to get America back on track.

If he did that would you really care if he took some time to finally realize he couldn't abide abortion any longer as Gov. of Mass?

Political elites picked Romney as the Republican nominee and helped him win that position for the express purpose of him losing to Obama.

Look at it from a strategic standpoint. Romney was portrayed as the crooked, greedy investor who made millions off the backs of the working class. Obama was sold as the working man's candidate, he was "one of us." While Saint Barack wanted to make sure everyone had access to affordable healthcare, the biggest pillar in the campaign of evil Romney was repealing Obamacare. Every debate, every ad, every soundbite, every appearance--let's undo Obama's work. In many of the statements he made where he wasn't directly attacking Obama, those not completely sold on voting for Romney still picked up the "I hate Obama" undertones.

Romney's political image was carefully crafted to be everything that people leaning even slightly to the left would hate. While Obama played the part of Messiah, Romney was cast as the Anti-Christ. It wasn't necessarily overt, and this wasn't done full-on from the beginning, but having followed the election from start to finish, this is the message the 2012 presidential race was meant to convey. You probably don't see it that way; you come across--at least to me--as someone who is skeptical of Obama and respects rather than abhors financial success. There is a prejudice inherent to all people that causes us to view the same facts in a completely different light.

For example, you say that "Romney is a SUPERSTAR at turning around large organizations", but this isn't how he was thought of at all. Gingrich established Romney's business record as that of a "corporate raider" early on in the primary, it stuck with him throughout the general, and there was no substantial effort made by him to correct it. If he had, some people might've supported him, while others would view his defensiveness as further self-incrimination.

Considering all of this, I stand by my earlier assertion that Romney was the worst of the Republicans running in 2012. Whoever our candidate is in 2016, it needs to be someone without all the baggage and who doesn't sound like a radical leftist caricature of a Republican.

Well, actually, I disagree.

First, I don't think that Romney was a bad candidate. The GOP team he put together (or had put together) still got him the 2nd highest raw vote total that any republican presidential candidate has ever received, behind George W. Bush's total from 2004.

Only, the Obama team was superior in terms of organization and the Democrats have built a coalition that is going to be very, very hard for the GOP to break as long as GOP whackos keep hating on women, gays, blacks, oh well, I think you get the idea.

Another thing that a lot of Lefties say is that Romney would have been a terrible president. He would probably have been an average president, but would have likely destroyed any gains in health care reform,and people decided that they wanted that health care reform.

No matter how you try to make your comments seem intelligent, the brain dead, liberal, stupidity usually comes out proving that in all actuality, you are not really a thinking person when it comes to politics. You should be embarrassed to post just drivel. I'm embarrassed for you actually. You're no better than the rest of the leftist clowns who can't think for themselves

Well, I suppose that in a weird universe somewhere, what you wrote makes sense.

Poor thing. Have you considered just grunting really loud from now on?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I picked "No Romney is not conservative enough".

Romney didn't win the Republican nomination for president, he bought it. He's not the only one; the general trend in primaries is whoever spends the most money gets it. Why anyone who looks at the candidate's positions and track record would vote for Romney is beyond me. In 2012, he was by far the weakest candidate in the field during the primary, and had no substantial differences with Obama in the general.

Why do people plug Romney? Do you actually think he's the best person for the job?

All nominations are essentially "bought." Sorry, but that's weak sauce.

 

[Politico]

Poll

Poll. Why is Rambunctious making a poll about a guy who isn't running?

 

[zeke]

Romney was never in it for the money or perks. He has all the money he and his family will ever need.

Why is it so hard to believe someone would run for president because he wants to help the country?

LMAO. People like you have been saying that Obama wants to destroy this country. And I voted for Obama. Now you want people to somehow believe that an ultra wealthy Republican just wants to "help the country".This is after the LAST Republican President REALLY did put us on a course to seriously hurt the country.
Good luck selling THAT idea. Fool me twice, shame on me. That ain't happening.

 

[Freewill]

"No, proven loser."

Better reason though he's a uber wealthy who has nothing in common with the average American and is likely looking at the Presidency more as a way to accrue even more wealth doing favors for special interests.

I hate Romney and all, but I just don't get that vibe.

He doesn't need the presidency to accrue wealth. Look at his history, it's a fact. The man's King Midas, lol.

Hate is such a strong word. Could you post why you HATE Romney? I am not saying you shouldn't hate him, or you should like him. But to HATE someone that implies something personal.

 

[Freewill]

I would vote for Joe Stalin if he ran as anything other then a democrat. Yes, being a democrat is the only criteria I need.