Talk Elections

How do our most devoted Romney hacks (I'm thinking Winfield, Politico, and NHI here), react on the forum? Do they disappear for awhile? Play the blame game (Media, voter fraud, magic)? Claim that their messiah will return in 2016?

Politico takes it the hardest, possible suicide. Winfield, somewhat behind Politico. He'll eventually find another 1%er North-Eastern Republican to invest in for 2016/2020. NHI is tge least invested of the 3. He'll recover the easiest.

'Draft Mitt 2016'

With the exception of Richard Nixon, the modern GOP doesn't typically give its nominees a second chance once they lose the general election.  Especially if they were never that enthralled with them in the first place.    

Oh, the responses should be precious.

These guys would, though.

If Santorum and Gingrich had just pulled out after Super Tuesday, Romney would have had a clear run on the White House and won the election.

Something along these lines.

Well, at least our candidate made it to the General Election.

I'll regroup and reload if Romney loses. He'll only be 69 in 2016, younger than McCain or Reagan was. It's certainly possible.

Very mature! I'm sure that's the standard you've been aiming for this entire time: fend off some guy that hardly anyone expected to be a factor instead of being coronated like everyone expected and then lose the General. I'll take the performance Santorum has had any day of the week over the campaign you've had to settle on.


"Only" 69. These people are truly delusional.

Yeah, you're one to talk about maturity. ::)

69 is not too old to be President, you're delusional if you think it is.

You're delusional to think that he would stand any chance at becoming the nominee after two previous Presidential campaigns, one of which ended in defeat during the primary and the other in which he was lucky to win the nomination. The age is just another negative for him, not the only one. Please don't try to deny that 69 is on the older side for a Presidential candidate.

Quit trying to put words in my mouth - First off, I never said 69 wasn't on the older side for a candidate. I think everyone can agree it is. What I clearly said, which you must not have caught, was that 69 isn't too old to be President. I stand by that.

I don't know if he could stand a chance - I just said there's a possibility he'd run again, and if he did, I would support him. Another instance of you making inaccurate statements.

Romney wasn't lucky to win the nomination - he just had a great advantage in having two horrible main opponents - Santorum and Gingrich.

Age wouldn't be the problem. If he loses once, the party will never nominate him again because everyone will remember him for losing. It's hard to imagine anyone pulling a Richard Nixon and running again after a failed general election presidential bid in our modern news cycle era.

...wow.

There are people who not only think Mitt Romney is a good candidate, but a candidate good enough that he should be nominated again after losing? ???

2016 will be a stronger crop of candidates, and although I think Governor Romney is still stronger than most of them, it would be hard for him to make it out again. If Romney loses in 2012, it's because Obama is a great speaker and a campaigner and the economy is improving - thus, ANY Republican would lose to him. Obama won't be up again in 2016.

....I mean really, unless they find that dead service boy in the back of Obama's iimo. .. . . .

I think we should seriously consider the possibility of getting these boys acquainted with the local consolers to get in touch with their "innerselves".  This Election isn't going to be pretty for either of them.

Indeed.  Obama ain't losing unless something very dramatic happens in the mean time.  If it does, Romney has the best chance (out of the GOP field) of beating him, despite his many faults.

2016 is going to be interesting, because as of right now, neither side has any "good" candidates ready.  But, obviously, a lot can (and no doubt will) happen in that time.

A third Romney run as non-incumbent?

Who's delusional here?

Mitt Romney is 65? That's kind of terrifying.

Winfield isn't the type to have any kind of meltdown when things go bad for Romney.  I don't think he was that phased by Romney's loss in the 2008 primaries.  (I think he just explained it by saying that the voters were too dumb to recognize Romney's greatness or something.)  The more interesting reaction will be if Romney wins.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I simply stated that 69 was on the older side while you made it seem like it wouldn't be an issue.

Romney is incredibly lucky if he wins the nomination. The party has not coalesced behind him despite years of hearing how he's the next in line. He's lucky in that the Anybody But Romney vote was split early on, allowing him to take the big wins. If he wins the nomination, he will go down as one of the most unpopular nominees in modern history.

Politico will be fine, he already moderated his hackishness. He will realize that Romney loses   a few days before the election happens.

Fixed :)

Short answer:

()
()
()

Romney is a guaranteed candidate in 2016....if Obama losses.

Anyone who can't beat an incumbent on the level of Obama in 2012 will be the worst nominee in US history.  It's a fine honor for Governor Romney and one I fully expect him to achieve.

It also means he has no chance of running again in 2016.

Not sure how the Romney fans will act. The much larger conservative base of the Republican Party will seize on the meme that Republicans lose when they don't go conservative enough. A better question will be whether or not Romney can break 50% in polling now that he is the only serious candidate. I have my doubts.