Should Romney run again for POTUS?
- Thread starter bigbadjohn45
- Start date
BBJ, I rather that Romney doesn't run but if he does and gets the nomination again, I have no other choice but to vote for him as a vote against Hillary. As we saw the last time, a non-vote or a protest vote will only put a socialist in the White House and as a capitalist, I could never live with myself if I allowed that to happen. We all know that Hillary and Warren are both socialists so to let either one of them win would allow the U.S. to continue down the socialist path of destruction. I believe that if that were to happen, the nation will be at a point of no return, much like the European countries we see today.
Guys,
I think we are probably past the point of no return. I think it will take world war or economic depression to right this ship. It is all a house of cards, and we are the the least ugly girl at the dance.
Going to be interesting.
If he wants to run, then so be it. I prefer Walker or Cruz. But more horses make it a stronger race.
I think we are probably past the point of no return. I think it will take world war or economic depression to right this ship. It is all a house of cards, and we are the the least ugly girl at the dance.
Going to be interesting.
If he wants to run, then so be it. I prefer Walker or Cruz. But more horses make it a stronger race.
I will only vote for Romney if he is the last one standing after the primaries. Surely we can do better than Romney this go around, though. If he's our nominee, I can guarantee you that he's a sure loser.
I do hope Romney runs if for no other reason than to splinter the moderate/establishment vote. Like you, I'm a big supporter of Ted Cruz, but I would also vote for Walker. I'm looking forward to seeing how it will all play out in the primaries....
Mike, I agree that we are probably already at the point of no return. I was just trying to be optimistic.
BBJ, if Romney is the nominee, he will most likely lose again unless the "principled" Republicans start to wake up along with many of the independents. But the truth of the matter, any conservative who cannot win the Republican nomination would also lose to Hillary. Below is a post I recently read on another forum that pretty much sums up Hillary's chances of winning the presidency.
If Hillary is breathing and runs, she will win the Presidency. She just has to keep on breathing. She automatically will get 45% of the vote, every flake in the USA will vote for her, as they did for Obama. She will then get more than the 5% needed just by being a woman, as Obama did for being half black. All she has to do is keep alive, and she is in for 8 years. Anyone want to argue put her in place of Obama the last 2 elections - does she win - sure does. After her 8 years, all the demos have to do is just keep throwing gender/race out there, and they win. Michelle Obama - black and female - landslide winner, no brainer. A Hispanic female, no brainer, landslide winner. And the dummie republicans will keep throwing rino white men and lose. Instead of putting up a conservative woman of any color who would win, just like Hillary is going to. Over half the country votes for something other than the character, capability and competence of a candidate. That's obviously evident in the last 2 elections. 52% votes on hate, fear, jelaousy, envy, enablement, race, gender - anything other than character, capability and competence. So you'd think the repos would get that, but they don't, Jed Bush or Romney or whoever won't win again, ever. Ted Cruz has a shot, only if Clinton doesn't run, because he's hispanic and will get some of that vote. But the repos won't let him in. Cruz and Lee are a winning ticket against anyone by Clinton, but it won't happen. All Hillary has to do is keep alive and someone prop her up on election day, and she's in. That's just the kind of country we have now. If, if, if by chance a republican gets in because HIllary doesn't run or dies beforehand, they would be incredibly saavy and smart to eliminate the fraudelent means tested welfare. You take 50, 60, 70 million able bodied citizens off the free train, and the Presidency is republican forever. If people need a job to exist, they will vote for the candidate who will provide them the job. But the repos are dummies, they won't think like that, even if they do win. Politicians, like any other profession, has 15% competency and 85% dummies. The 85% dummie repos won't get it.
This post was edited on 1/12 5:59 PM by nashvillegoldenflash
BBJ, if Romney is the nominee, he will most likely lose again unless the "principled" Republicans start to wake up along with many of the independents. But the truth of the matter, any conservative who cannot win the Republican nomination would also lose to Hillary. Below is a post I recently read on another forum that pretty much sums up Hillary's chances of winning the presidency.
If Hillary is breathing and runs, she will win the Presidency. She just has to keep on breathing. She automatically will get 45% of the vote, every flake in the USA will vote for her, as they did for Obama. She will then get more than the 5% needed just by being a woman, as Obama did for being half black. All she has to do is keep alive, and she is in for 8 years. Anyone want to argue put her in place of Obama the last 2 elections - does she win - sure does. After her 8 years, all the demos have to do is just keep throwing gender/race out there, and they win. Michelle Obama - black and female - landslide winner, no brainer. A Hispanic female, no brainer, landslide winner. And the dummie republicans will keep throwing rino white men and lose. Instead of putting up a conservative woman of any color who would win, just like Hillary is going to. Over half the country votes for something other than the character, capability and competence of a candidate. That's obviously evident in the last 2 elections. 52% votes on hate, fear, jelaousy, envy, enablement, race, gender - anything other than character, capability and competence. So you'd think the repos would get that, but they don't, Jed Bush or Romney or whoever won't win again, ever. Ted Cruz has a shot, only if Clinton doesn't run, because he's hispanic and will get some of that vote. But the repos won't let him in. Cruz and Lee are a winning ticket against anyone by Clinton, but it won't happen. All Hillary has to do is keep alive and someone prop her up on election day, and she's in. That's just the kind of country we have now. If, if, if by chance a republican gets in because HIllary doesn't run or dies beforehand, they would be incredibly saavy and smart to eliminate the fraudelent means tested welfare. You take 50, 60, 70 million able bodied citizens off the free train, and the Presidency is republican forever. If people need a job to exist, they will vote for the candidate who will provide them the job. But the repos are dummies, they won't think like that, even if they do win. Politicians, like any other profession, has 15% competency and 85% dummies. The 85% dummie repos won't get it.
This post was edited on 1/12 5:59 PM by nashvillegoldenflash
Flash, the part about Mrs. Clinton receiving 45% of the vote automatically is probably right. If you look at the electoral college map, the Democrats are pretty much guaranteed at least 45% of the 270 votes needed to win the election even before the election begins. This is because there are many traditionally Democratic stronghold states that will contine to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what. I think we both know it'll take a miracle to keep her from being our next President. Mike's right, it'll probably take either a major depression or some sort of catastrophic event to change this expected outcome.
This post was edited on 1/13 9:18 AM by bigbadjohn45
This post was edited on 1/13 9:18 AM by bigbadjohn45
Flash, here's a good article that illustrates what I was saying about the Democrats' current advantage with the electoral college:
Democrats' stranglehold on the electoral college
By mailto:chris.cillizza@washpost.com?...anglehold on the electoral college, in 1 GIF'
One of the first questions people ask upon learning I'm a political reporter is who would be favored in a 2016 general election matchup between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. (Yes, to get to that point requires any number of assumptions but it's still BY FAR the most common question I get asked.)
My answer is always the same: Hillary Clinton would start out as a favorite -- albeit not a heavy one -- over Jeb Bush or any other Republican due, in large part, to the built-in advantage Democrats currently enjoy in the electoral college. (That edge is built on demographic shifts in the country that have largely favored Democrats.) The GIF below -- how the electoral map has changed over the past three decades, transitioning from Republican dominance in the 1980s to Democratic superiority in 2008 and 2012.
The simple fact is that, in 2016, the Democratic candidate -- I assume that will be Hillary but it could be someone else and not make a huge difference -- starts at a significantly higher point in terms of electoral votes than whomever Republicans nominate.
Let's use President Obama's 2012 victory as the example. In that race President Obama won 332 electoral votes to 206 electoral votes for Mitt Romney. Here's what the map looked like:
[/URL]
Now, let's look at the 10 closest states -- by percentage -- in the race and subtract them from each man's electoral vote total. Those states -- Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and Wisconsin -- comprise 130 electoral votes. Obama won all of them except for North Carolina and its 15 electoral votes. So, take 115 votes from Obama's column and 15 votes from Romney's column. That brings Obama to 217 electoral votes and Romney to 191 -- a built-in 26 vote electoral vote edge. That edge is actually deceivingly low because it excludes Pennsylvania and its 20 electoral votes from the Democratic side. And, while Pennsylvania was one of the 10 closest states in 2012 -- Obama won it by just over 5 percentage points -- the state hasn't voted for a Republican at the presidential level since 1988. Add Pennsylvania to Obama's total and he starts at a baseline of 237 electoral votes -- only 33 short of the 270 you need to get elected president.
And, those electoral college advantages are not unique to Obama's 2012 map. Remember that in 2012 he didn't carry Indiana (as he did in 2008) or North Carolina, and the the 237 total above doesn't include swing states like Ohio, Virginia Florida, Colorado and Iowa -- all of which Obama won in 2012. In fact, there's an argument to be made that the electoral map in 2016 -- regardless of the two candidates -- will be even more challenging for Republicans than the 2012 map. The growth of the Hispanic community in places like Arizona and Georgia means those states could teeter on being potentially competitive in 2016, and, if Republicans remain unable to win any significant swath of the Hispanic vote, will be prime battlegrounds in 2020 and beyond. Texas -- and its treasure trove of 38 electoral votes -- could follow suit in 2020 or 2024.
While demographic changes are moving a number of traditionally Republican states closer to Democrats, there's little evidence that many states are heading in the opposite direction. You could make the case that Wisconsin is moving closer to Republicans' grasp (it was the 10th closest state in 2012), and Minnesota -- the 11th closest state -- might be shifting ever-so-slightly in Republicans' direction as well. The problem is that big states like New York, California, Michigan and Pennsylvania show no signs of becoming more friendly toward Republicans; in the case of New York and California, they are becoming far less friendly to the GOP. With those major electoral vote targets off the table -- or close to it -- the math becomes increasingly difficult for Republicans.
Here's the lone comfort at the moment for Republicans: The electoral college tends to move like a pendulum. In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 489 electoral votes and followed that up four years later with 525 electoral votes. In 1988, George H.W. Bush took 426 electoral votes. The Republican lock on the electoral college seemed permanent. But then it wasn't anymore. It's not clear -- at least to me -- how Republicans will pick the Democratic lock on the electoral college but history suggests they will, eventually, find a way.
Chris Cillizza writes "The Fix," a politics blog for the Washington Post. He also covers the White House.
This post was edited on 1/13 9:26 AM by bigbadjohn45
This post was edited on 1/13 9:27 AM by bigbadjohn45
This post was edited on 1/13 9:28 AM by bigbadjohn45
Two things to say.
1. Romney, remember Reagan ran 3 times.
2. Electoral Map, I believe with the "right" candidate many of the rust best states open up for us. I even think a few of the NE states open up "only" if we have a clear, concise communicator that presents a competing story to Clinton (if she is the nominee).
1. Romney, remember Reagan ran 3 times.
2. Electoral Map, I believe with the "right" candidate many of the rust best states open up for us. I even think a few of the NE states open up "only" if we have a clear, concise communicator that presents a competing story to Clinton (if she is the nominee).
Mike,
I believe that the metrics are much different regarding Reagan and Romney. Romney has the same baggage he carried before. The Dems/media will not forget this and will pick-up essentially where they left off in 2012. I believe Romney is unelectable.
Regarding the electoral map, you sound as if we (GOP) may have a sliver of hope? I hope you're right on that. I agree with Flash that it will take a miracle to defeat Hillary (or Warren for that matter) given the demographics of the electoral map; however, that "clear, concise communicator" you referred to describes Cruz to a tee. I don't how much you've had a chance to listen to him, but the man possesses an extraordinary gift of communication that is rivaled by no one else I've ever heard.
