How does Candidate Romney get around these issues?

[21st Century Independent]

1.Will running Bain, his firm acquired companies, fired workers to make them more manageable and efficient?

2.Romney Care in MA?

3.Mormonism?

[pbrower2a]

1.Will running Bain, his firm acquired companies, fired workers to make them more manageable and efficient?

2.Romney Care in MA?

3.Mormonism?

1. So far, business experience has been of slight significance in becoming President. If anything, the more extensive one's business experience before becoming President, the less effective one is as President. Examples: Herbert Hoover, George W. Bush.

The private sector and the public sector operate very differently. Government does not run on a profit-and-loss basis.  Economy is not the highest priority in waging wars, and governments lavish money on law enforcement for good reason. Diplomats other than those involved directly in economic matters or granted posts because of their prestige  do not rotate in and out of private business.

2. Irrelevant should healthcare reform succeed in America by 2012.

3. One hopes -- irrelevant.  It could hurt if he must explain Mormonism instead of addressing issues of 2012. Think of what JFK did with Roman Catholicism, a religion similarly exotic to many Americans and long maligned in 1960.

More significant in 2012 will be the advantages that the incumbent President has -- if President Obama is generally seen as an effective and desirable President. 13 of 18 incumbent Presidents who chose to run for re-election since 1900 have been re-elected.

A healthy economy and graceful exits from Afghanistan and Iraq would make President Obama all but invincible no matter who the opposition candidate is. 

[Mr. Morden]

1.Will running Bain, his firm acquired companies, fired workers to make them more manageable and efficient?

2.Romney Care in MA?

3.Mormonism?

2. Irrelevant should healthcare reform succeed in America by 2012.

Seems rather clear to me that no matter how "successful" it'll be among the general population, GOP primary voters won't much like it.

[paul718]

1.Will running Bain, his firm acquired companies, fired workers to make them more manageable and efficient?

Well, I don't think this should be an issue, but am not naive enough to believe that it won't.  He could spin it by saying that management involves difficult decisions, and he's not afraid to make the unpopular decision for the sake of long-term benefit.   Also, according to wikipedia, he was able to rescue Bain & Co. without any lay-offs.  So I'm sure we'll be hearing about that.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

According to Politico, he will be defending RomneyCare in his upcoming book.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Non-issue.  Religion doesn't influence enough American voters to make a difference.  Thankfully.  

[Sewer]

Religion doesn't influence enough American voters to make a difference.

lol

[Scam of God]

Non-issue.  Religion doesn't influence enough American voters to make a difference.  Thankfully.

XMFD

[paul718]

Religion doesn't influence enough American voters to make a difference.

lol

The sitting President walked into the White House despite being a member of a wacky church.  And the Mormon in question almost won the Republican nomination.  Why was my comment so laughable?

XMFD

??

[milhouse24]

Religion doesn't influence enough American voters to make a difference.

lol

The sitting President walked into the White House despite being a member of a wacky church.  And the Mormon in question almost won the Republican nomination.  Why was my comment so laughable?

XMFD

??

Wow, and you call yourself a Republican voter?  If there's one thing above all else that Republicans care about its religion, more importantly, the Christian religion.  And to say he almost won the nomination is a stretch, if you believe that losing to Huckabee, McCain, and Fred Thompson a success.  He can win the West, but never the South, and ironically he would win primaries in liberal states.  Perhaps Willard should run as a 3rd party?

[Mr. Morden]

Wow, and you call yourself a Republican voter?  If there's one thing above all else that Republicans care about its religion, more importantly, the Christian religion.  And to say he almost won the nomination is a stretch, if you believe that losing to Huckabee, McCain, and Fred Thompson a success.  He can win the West, but never the South, and ironically he would win primaries in liberal states.  Perhaps Willard should run as a 3rd party?

Uh, "liberal states" send delegates to the GOP convention too.  California is the largest cache of delegates in the GOP primaries.  If Romney won all the states he won last time plus all the non-southern states won by McCain, that would be more than enough to win the nomination.

[nhmagic]

Add a few more to the list:

4. Reagan bashing

5. John McCain Endorsement

6. Abortion Views

7. Turning on the Gay Community

8. Romneycare

[paul718]

Wow, and you call yourself a Republican voter? 

I'm sorry, what?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney was in 2nd place when he dropped out of the race.  Pay attention.

[milhouse24]

Wow, and you call yourself a Republican voter?  If there's one thing above all else that Republicans care about its religion, more importantly, the Christian religion.  And to say he almost won the nomination is a stretch, if you believe that losing to Huckabee, McCain, and Fred Thompson a success.  He can win the West, but never the South, and ironically he would win primaries in liberal states.  Perhaps Willard should run as a 3rd party?

Uh, "liberal states" send delegates to the GOP convention too.  California is the largest cache of delegates in the GOP primaries.  If Romney won all the states he won last time plus all the non-southern states won by McCain, that would be more than enough to win the nomination.

Wow, how fantastic, Romney wins all the non-southern states, but loses all the southern states and Iowa primaries.  I'm sure the conservative base of Republicans will be so proud and he'll win the national election, of course that is counting that the South would still vote Red and for Romney.

[milhouse24]

Wow, and you call yourself a Republican voter? 

I'm sorry, what?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney was in 2nd place when he dropped out of the race.  Pay attention.

Well, I might be wrong but there are sure a lot of Religious Conservative groups and leaders of the Republican-Conservative party.  Do you really believe that the GOP voters in the South and Iowa would support Romney in either the primaries or the national election?  In fact, I would guarantee that if Romney is the GOP nominee, there will be a 3rd Party Evangelical Christian ticket - maybe Ron Paul, or some either charismatic religious leader and he will sap Romney's votes in the general election.

He may use the Obama primary strategy of winning the small, and liberal states.  I'm sure the conservatives would be thrilled that a liberal carpetbagger has stolen their primaries even if Romney loses Iowa and South Carolina.  The Southern GOP will break if Romney is the nominee.  It would be interesting if they defect to the Democrats or start a new party.

[paul718]

And to say he almost won the nomination is a stretch, if you believe that losing to Huckabee, McCain, and Fred Thompson a success.  

Romney was in 2nd place when he dropped out of the race.  Pay attention.

Well, I might be wrong but there are sure a lot of Religious Conservative groups and leaders of the Republican-Conservative party.  Do you really believe that the GOP voters in the South and Iowa would support Romney in either the primaries or the national election?

Yes.  Romney won the Ames straw poll in '07, and took 2nd-place in the Iowa caucuses.  He was also competitive in the Deep South primaries.  And if they supported McCain in the general, I don't know why you'd assume they wouldn't support Romney.  Are you forgetting that Romney was "the establishment candidate" two winters ago?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there was a third-party "Evangelical" ticket, it would be some no-name and wouldn't factor into the race.

[milhouse24]

Yes.  Romney won the Ames straw poll in '07, and took 2nd-place in the Iowa caucuses.  He was also competitive in the Deep South primaries.  And if they supported McCain in the general, I don't know why you'd assume they wouldn't support Romney.  Are you forgetting that Romney was "the establishment candidate" two winters ago?

If there was a third-party "Evangelical" ticket, it would be some no-name and wouldn't factor into the race.

Well, you may be high on Romney, but if he won the straw poll then why did he only finish 2nd in Iowa?  Wouldn't he have finished first by your logic?  Could voters actually prefer and like the Christian Huckabee better? 

You also may not think the South Carolina primaries matter, but I do, and finishing behind McCain, Huckabee and lazy Fred Thompson means he has a lot of ground to make up.  Fred Thompson slept through all the primaries but when he finally got around to campaigning he actually beat Romney in SC, and Mitt spent infinitely more money, time, and effort campaigning than Fred.  South Carolina has always been the last stand for any GOP candidate, but maybe Romney will be an exception.

How does Romney = McCain?  By "Establishment Candidate" do you mean the rich party leaders from Wall Street?  Yeah, they are in touch with grassroots conservatists?  Romney is just able to fundraise a lot of money because he used to be a CEO, but Huckabee had less money than Romney and still beat him!  How do you explain that? 

McCain beat Romney because he was a better candidate, had over 20 years of experience, was a famous 'war hero' and won the southern military crowd.  Romney is far below that.  He was a one term governor who is only the frontrunner because he has spent more money than anyone else.  That is called a paper champion and usually they are headed to a fall for their hubris. 

I have nothing against Romney's religion, but majority wins and the GOP has a majority of passionate Christian voters who care more about "Bush Compassionate Conservatism (populist socialism)" than "Romney Fiscal Conservatism" 

The only way I see Romney winning is if the Economy sours further and people stop caring about religion or military matters.  In my opinion, there are no strong GOP candidates and there are a lot of promising people who haven't announced yet and they may prove better than Romney.

[Bull Moose Base]

Bain is less of a problem in the GOP primary than the general but still potentially an issue.  He'll try to change the subject to his "overall management talent".

If a Public Option passes (which I doubt) he'll have a bogeyman to deflect comparison.  If not, it'll be a problem for him in a primary.  But like Sarah Palin's policy on mocking the retarded, Republican voters are used to accomodating hypocrites and Romney will bank on his attributes and opponents' weaknesses being enough for him.

Mormonism hurts him in states with non-Mormon evangelicals. He'll need to win Florida and dominate the West and Northeast.  He may well do so.

[paul718]

Well, you may be high on Romney, but if he won the straw poll then why did he only finish 2nd in Iowa?  Wouldn't he have finished first by your logic?  Could voters actually prefer and like the Christian Huckabee better? 

My point is that Romney was competitive in Iowa.  You insinuated that there was no way Iowans would support Romney, when a significant portion of them actually did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Huckabee and Thompson are southerners, so it wasn't a surprise that they did well in South Carolina.  And Thompson beat Romney by only 0.3%.  George H.W. Bush, who I wouldn't label a "Christian Conservative", won the '88 SC primary by 49 points.  So, again, I don't understand why you think it's a given that Romney will fail here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney = McCain in that they aren't Southerners or darlings of the Christian-Right, which you believe is so vital to the Republican nomination.  And by "Establishment Candidate" I mean that most Conservative commentators were backing him for the nomination.  He also had a slew of endorsements, including guys like DeMint and Santorum.  

And Huckabee won only a handful of primaries, and none of which were outside of his cultural comfort zone.  And you do know that Romney was ahead of Huckabee when he dropped out, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

You know that's not why Romney was a front-runner.  Come on now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By your logic, the GOP always has and always will nominate a "Christian Conservative" for President.  That is simply not true.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like I said in my initial post in this thread, I don't think Americans care enough about religion to have it influence a nationwide election.  As for the economy vs. military matters...tell me, which topic has dominated the news over the past 2 years?  How much further does the economy need to sour before it becomes a priority?  You say this as if the unemployment rate isn't rising.

[Mr. Morden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

You know that's not why Romney was a front-runner.  Come on now.

Actually, I think Romney's $ was a large part of why he was a top contender.  He spent his way to early leads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early primary states.  But milhouse seems to think that votes you get from spending lots of $ on advertising somehow don't count?  Romney's $ was an advantage in 2008, and it'll be an advantage in 2012.  If Romney is able to spend his way to the 2012 GOP nomination, his victory will still "count".  It's not like they're going to take the nomination away from him because of the way he won it.

[paul718]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

You know that's not why Romney was a front-runner.  Come on now.

Actually, I think Romney's $ was a large part of why he was a top contender.  He spent his way to early leads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early primary states.  But milhouse seems to think that votes you get from spending lots of $ on advertising somehow don't count?  Romney's $ was an advantage in 2008, and it'll be an advantage in 2012.  If Romney is able to spend his way to the 2012 GOP nomination, his victory will still "count".  It's not like they're going to take the nomination away from him because of the way he won it.

Well, I took Milhouse as saying Romney's support was completely devoid of merit, when one look at the man's resume would tell you otherwise.  I was basically trying to keep this debate from turning into an "Opinion of Mitt Romney" thread. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Add a few more to the list:

4. Reagan bashing

5. John McCain Endorsement

6. Abortion Views

7. Turning on the Gay Community

8. Romneycare

4. Was Reagan not a Pro-Choice Tax raiser as Governor? Did he not raise taxes as President? Reagan wasn't perfect because no one is. Saying your an independent during someone's administration /= Reagan bashing. Quit being hackist

5. Sarah Palin endorsed McCain before Romney did? Unlike Huckabee who goes around endorsing losing primary candidates like Vander Plaats and possibly Cox, Romney has avoided most primaries like Florida for example while only getting into Arizona and Utah because if he didn't endorse McCain that might reflect badly on Romney in 2012, especially if McCain wins. While at the same time backing winners like Scott Brown, Chris Christie, and Bob McDonnell. In Utah he endorsed Bennet because the two are close friends and Bennet supported Romney in 2008. I want Bennet and McCain primaried but I realize that these primaries often bring in national factors that sometimes are unavoidable.

6. Was Reagan not Pro-Choice for half his term as Governor?

7.That one is a problem but he won't have to worry about it in the primary.

8. Well pointing to the fact that MA has a 90% Dem Legislature that overode some of Romney's veto is a start and explains some of the unnecessary regulation and state mandates but the overall programs is still Romney's and he will have to explain the ways in which it isn't Obamacare and why he isn't at fault for the cost issues.

[milhouse24]

Well, you may be high on Romney, but if he won the straw poll then why did he only finish 2nd in Iowa?  Wouldn't he have finished first by your logic?  Could voters actually prefer and like the Christian Huckabee better? 

My point is that Romney was competitive in Iowa.  You insinuated that there was no way Iowans would support Romney, when a significant portion of them actually did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Huckabee and Thompson are southerners, so it wasn't a surprise that they did well in South Carolina.  And Thompson beat Romney by only 0.3%.  George H.W. Bush, who I wouldn't label a "Christian Conservative", won the '88 SC primary by 49 points.  So, again, I don't understand why you think it's a given that Romney will fail here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney = McCain in that they aren't Southerners or darlings of the Christian-Right, which you believe is so vital to the Republican nomination.  And by "Establishment Candidate" I mean that most Conservative commentators were backing him for the nomination.  He also had a slew of endorsements, including guys like DeMint and Santorum.  

And Huckabee won only a handful of primaries, and none of which were outside of his cultural comfort zone.  And you do know that Romney was ahead of Huckabee when he dropped out, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

You know that's not why Romney was a front-runner.  Come on now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By your logic, the GOP always has and always will nominate a "Christian Conservative" for President.  That is simply not true.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like I said in my initial post in this thread, I don't think Americans care enough about religion to have it influence a nationwide election.  As for the economy vs. military matters...tell me, which topic has dominated the news over the past 2 years?  How much further does the economy need to sour before it becomes a priority?  You say this as if the unemployment rate isn't rising.

As for Iowa, I'm going say that Romney lost there, that is pretty clear with the facts.  Even if he "almost won" or "barely lost," the question is can he actually win in 2012 or will another nobody come and beat him?  What to stop another Epic Failure?

Again, in South Carolina, Romney came in 4th place but almost 3rd?  Great, so he lost again, and the outcome would be the same again, if there were 2 Southerners in the primary - Barbour and Demint.  What's to stop another Epic Failure?

In 1988, GHWB won because of Reagan's legacy, he's a terrible candidate and that was shown clearly in 1992.  He got very lucky.  Romney will need the same luck, because he has very little to appeal to SC voters.

McCain is a very Famous War Hero and South Carolina has military bases and lots of Veterans.  Romney is not a Veteran.  Romney is completely different than McCain.  Even if Romney was the establishment candidate in 2008, he STILL Lost.  The endorsements did nothing and it might have made things worse because he didn't earn any votes yet.  Rudy was also a media frontrunner.  Rudy could even be better than Romney on some qualifications.  How does Mitt prevent another Epic Fail of frontrunner and establishment status?

Does it matter that Romney won late primaries in liberal states?  Would he have had a chance at beating McCain?  He lost to McCain in New Hampshire, why was this?  I can guarantee you if Huckabee had won South Carolina (if Fred Thompson never entered), Huck would have beaten McCain for the nomination, and Romney would have been far behind.

Romney IS the Frontrunner because he has spent and raised the most money.  I don't know why you would think there is any other reason for this.  Besides, Palin is also a front-runner over Romney in some areas.  I think most recent Republican nominees have had a southern strategy with a Christian pro-life platform.  GHWB actually changed to pro-life to win the nomination, so Romney will have to make some changes to not be seen as a Northeast Liberal.

Again, for the GOP primaries I believe that Religion will be just as important as the economy.  You can choose to stick your head in the sand and convince yourself it won't matter.  We can wait and see where Huckabee voters go to in Iowa and SC.  Rudy is a Catholic and he did terrible in the GOP primary, and he was far ahead of Romney in the polls.

In a general election, Romney would be competitive in liberal swing states, but he could also lose the Southern states.  But he won't survive the primaries, yet again.

[milhouse24]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

You know that's not why Romney was a front-runner.  Come on now.

Actually, I think Romney's $ was a large part of why he was a top contender.  He spent his way to early leads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early primary states.  But milhouse seems to think that votes you get from spending lots of $ on advertising somehow don't count?  Romney's $ was an advantage in 2008, and it'll be an advantage in 2012.  If Romney is able to spend his way to the 2012 GOP nomination, his victory will still "count".  It's not like they're going to take the nomination away from him because of the way he won it.

Well, I took Milhouse as saying Romney's support was completely devoid of merit, when one look at the man's resume would tell you otherwise.  I was basically trying to keep this debate from turning into an "Opinion of Mitt Romney" thread. 

So should someone win the primaries because he was CEO and Rich?  Steve Forbes tried the same thing in 1996 and he still lost!  Gimme a break, just because you are a rich CEO should not allow you to buy the primary.  Unless you are Bloomberg, no other newbie one-termer politician is going to walk away with the Primary.

[milhouse24]

Add a few more to the list:

4. Reagan bashing

5. John McCain Endorsement

6. Abortion Views

7. Turning on the Gay Community

8. Romneycare

4. Was Reagan not a Pro-Choice Tax raiser as Governor? Did he not raise taxes as President? Reagan wasn't perfect because no one is. Saying your an independent during someone's administration /= Reagan bashing. Quit being hackist

5. Sarah Palin endorsed McCain before Romney did? Unlike Huckabee who goes around endorsing losing primary candidates like Vander Plaats and possibly Cox, Romney has avoided most primaries like Florida for example while only getting into Arizona and Utah because if he didn't endorse McCain that might reflect badly on Romney in 2012, especially if McCain wins. While at the same time backing winners like Scott Brown, Chris Christie, and Bob McDonnell. In Utah he endorsed Bennet because the two are close friends and Bennet supported Romney in 2008. I want Bennet and McCain primaried but I realize that these primaries often bring in national factors that sometimes are unavoidable.

6. Was Reagan not Pro-Choice for half his term as Governor?

7.That one is a problem but he won't have to worry about it in the primary.

8. Well pointing to the fact that MA has a 90% Dem Legislature that overode some of Romney's veto is a start and explains some of the unnecessary regulation and state mandates but the overall programs is still Romney's and he will have to explain the ways in which it isn't Obamacare and why he isn't at fault for the cost issues.

I have some news to you Romney is NOT Reagan, and he's really not anywhere close to then-Governor Reagan at this time. 

It won't be impossible for Romney to win the nomination, but its not going to be easy.  He will have to have a lot of luck.

[paul718]

As for Iowa, I'm going say that Romney lost there, that is pretty clear with the facts.  Even if he "almost won" or "barely lost," the question is can he actually win in 2012 or will another nobody come and beat him?  What to stop another Epic Failure?

Failure?  The guy made it to the final round of consideration for McCain's runningmate and has positioned himself as the heir-apparent to the GOP nod. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's not expected to win South Carolina.  Just like John McCain wasn't expected to win Iowa in '08.  Candidates aren't supposed to win every primary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

McCain's war record is analogous to Romney's business acumen.  All roads seem to be leading to "the economy" as Issue #1 next cycle.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I just disagree with this.  I don't know what to tell you.  Huckabee never competed in any of the mainstream states.   McCain and Romney were neck-and-neck headed into Florida, but McCain beat him by 5 points.  Had Romney won, he would've taken all 57 delegates and went into Super Tuesday with a full head of steam.  And I'm not cheerleading for Romney...I was a McCain supporter last go-round.  Huckabee never really had a shot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A significant amount of Americans think he is the most qualified to be President right now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney is pro-life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People who base their vote on "religion" are but a mere portion of the GOP, and the electorate's distaste for the Dubya years have only marginalized their influence. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So should someone win the primaries because he was CEO and Rich?  Steve Forbes tried the same thing in 1996 and he still lost!  Gimme a break, just because you are a rich CEO should not allow you to buy the primary. 

That's not what I said.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney is pro-life.

lol