Rupert Murdoch brutally attacks Romney - calls him a "terrible candidate"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 06:30:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Rupert Murdoch brutally attacks Romney - calls him a "terrible candidate"
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Rupert Murdoch brutally attacks Romney - calls him a "terrible candidate"  (Read 2486 times)
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 15, 2015, 06:58:52 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/01/rupert-murdoch-weighs-in-on-calls-romney-a-terrible-201107.html?ml=po

Probably a tad more relevant than Jay Leno's opinion.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,386
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2015, 06:59:23 PM »

Jeb +1
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2015, 07:55:09 PM »

Murdoch is correct, and this is a good sign that the Republican media establishment will not go down the sinking Romney boat.
Logged
RogueBeaver
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,058
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2015, 07:59:37 PM »

Murdoch is correct, and this is a good sign that the Republican media establishment will not go down the sinking Romney boat.

But they will with Jeb.
Logged
Angel of Death
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,410
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2015, 08:06:18 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2015, 08:36:26 PM »

Murdoch is correct, and this is a good sign that the Republican media establishment will not go down the sinking Romney boat.

But they will with Jeb.

That's the unfortunate thing from this.
Logged
dmmidmi
dmwestmi
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2015, 07:40:41 AM »

The best part about this is Rupert Murdoch agreeing with an editorial in his own newspaper.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2015, 07:48:12 AM »

My opinion of Romney goes up, then.
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2015, 11:26:21 AM »

He actually wasnt a terrible candidate. He made no serious errors (the 47% remark didnt cost him). In fact Id say he was the best losing candidate since Nixon in 1960. Which is why there is a Romeny push now.

The worst candidate of the past 50 years was probably Gore in 2000. More so than McGovern or Goldwater. Neither the GOP in 64 or Dems in 72 were going to win, so mine as well have a fun campaign with a purity candidate.

Gore by far was the worst.

He lost an election (yeah I know he won the popular vote by 500,000) in a year with no wars or foreign policy debacles, 3.8 % unemployment, 4% GDP growth year over year and a budget surplus of $200 billion dollars.

In a similar yet slightly less advantegous year, GHW Bush won by nearly 8 points over Michael Dukakis (5% unemployment, 4% GDP growth and a $150b deficit).

The period 1996-2000 was one of the strongest in post WW2 history and yet Gore lost. No recession, no war and you lose. 1984-1988 was almost as good and the incumbent party won 426 EVs.


Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2015, 11:39:03 AM »

Murdoch is correct, and this is a good sign that the Republican media establishment will not go down the sinking Romney boat.

But they will with Jeb.

That's the unfortunate thing from this.

Any boat we launch in 2016 will sink, so might as well choose the best one.

The best part about this is Rupert Murdoch agreeing with an editorial in his own newspaper.

I noticed that.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,220
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2015, 06:08:53 PM »

He's not wrong.
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2015, 11:33:43 PM »

Just a thought.. do you Americans ever feel that allowing Murdoch to become a US citizen was a major mistake?

IMO he needs to be deported to some remote island off the coast of Australia, which is unfortunately impossible with his current status. Still, after Obama has started droning US citizens it might be possible to solve the problem, even if deportation would be more humane.

The irony of you calling yourself Charlotte Hebdo and wanting to supress Murdoch's speech...
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2015, 12:07:00 AM »

Just a thought.. do you Americans ever feel that allowing Murdoch to become a US citizen was a major mistake?

IMO he needs to be deported to some remote island off the coast of Australia, which is unfortunately impossible with his current status. Still, after Obama has started droning US citizens it might be possible to solve the problem, even if deportation would be more humane.

The irony of you calling yourself Charlotte Hebdo and wanting to supress Murdoch's speech...

Joke.
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2015, 12:08:36 AM »

Mitt may be a terrible candidate, but who was better in 2012? And forget about 2008, no Republican was going to beat Obama (or Clinton). This might be the first time Mitt faces actual competition.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2015, 02:54:56 AM »

Same applies here. No one, not even Jon Huntsman, could beat Hillary Clinton.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,570


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2015, 03:21:39 AM »

He actually wasnt a terrible candidate. He made no serious errors (the 47% remark didnt cost him). In fact Id say he was the best losing candidate since Nixon in 1960. Which is why there is a Romeny push now.

The worst candidate of the past 50 years was probably Gore in 2000. More so than McGovern or Goldwater. Neither the GOP in 64 or Dems in 72 were going to win, so mine as well have a fun campaign with a purity candidate.

Gore by far was the worst.

He lost an election (yeah I know he won the popular vote by 500,000) in a year with no wars or foreign policy debacles, 3.8 % unemployment, 4% GDP growth year over year and a budget surplus of $200 billion dollars.

In a similar yet slightly less advantegous year, GHW Bush won by nearly 8 points over Michael Dukakis (5% unemployment, 4% GDP growth and a $150b deficit).

The period 1996-2000 was one of the strongest in post WW2 history and yet Gore lost. No recession, no war and you lose. 1984-1988 was almost as good and the incumbent party won 426 EVs.


Gore was trailing by a lot for most of the election, before he did clearly have the votes to win, but it just wasn't by enough of a margin to become President. Of course Bush would have easily won without his DWI being disclosed shortly before the election.

Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2015, 04:03:37 PM »

Same applies here. No one, not even Jon Huntsman, could beat Hillary Clinton.

John Hunstman couldnt beat anyone
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2015, 10:18:04 PM »

Same applies here. No one, not even Jon Huntsman, could beat Hillary Clinton.

John Hunstman couldnt beat anyone

Yes. John Hunstman could not beat anyone, as he does not exist.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,948
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2015, 10:20:45 PM »

Murdoch is correct, and this is a good sign that the Republican media establishment will not go down the sinking Romney boat.

But they will with Jeb.

That's the unfortunate thing from this.

Any boat we launch in 2016 will sink, so might as well choose the best one.


The GOP would be best off nominating Rand Paul, Scott Walker, or John Kasich.  At least then they'd have a clear vision they could lay out - libertarian, conservative, or establishment/moderate and have a fairly effective advocate.

Jeb Bush's last name will doom him utterly in 2016.  He will have a very hard time attracting much more than McCain '08 voters.  The Bush name is just toxic.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,500
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 17, 2015, 10:25:25 PM »

Same applies here. No one, not even Jon Huntsman, could beat Hillary Clinton.

Kasich, Huntsman, and Bush could beat HRC. Christie, if he recovers politically at some point, could as well.

I remember reading something at one point that said that Huntsman was the potential nominee that scared Obama the most.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2015, 10:33:09 PM »

Same applies here. No one, not even Jon Huntsman, could beat Hillary Clinton.

Kasich, Huntsman, and Bush could beat HRC. Christie, if he recovers politically at some point, could as well.

I remember reading something at one point that said that Huntsman was the potential nominee that scared Obama the most.

I say this as his biggest supporter, but he sadly could not in this environment. Neither could the other two. I really can't think of anyone who could plausibly beat her, to be honest.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 13 queries.