Can Romney win in any legitimate scenario?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

"Legitimate scenario" means anything that has a realistic chance of happening, not against a Kucinich/McKinney ticket or something.

I vote no.

[Jaggerjack]

He'd be smoked. Hard. Only person I know of that would say "Yes" would be Rawlings.

[useful idiot]

He has a good chance against Obama, but he'd be at a very serious disadvantage against Hillary and would get trounced by Edwards.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

yeah, just like John Kerry "tounced" Bush in 2004.

and just like Dems said that a B-movie actor named Ronald Reagan would never be elected president.

One thing is for sure:  Democrats have a long history of vastly over-estimating their chances of winning and under-estimating their opponents.

That, and they have a tendency to nominate horrendous candidates and they spend the next four years whining about how Republicans "stole" the election with "dirty tricks"

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

yeah, just like John Kerry "tounced" Bush in 2004.

and just like Dems said that a B-movie actor named Ronald Reagan would never be elected president.

One thing is for sure:  Democrats have a long history of vastly over-estimating their chances of winning and under-estimating their opponents.

Great way of bringing up examples that aren't even remotely comparable!

Romney trails Hillary by 7 in the last poll I saw. Anyone who can't even beat Hillary is clearly not under-estimated.

[opebo]

He has a good chance against Obama, but he'd be at a very serious disadvantage against Hillary and would get trounced by Edwards.

Very true!  Racial prejudice trumps religious prejudice.

[AndrewTX]

I gave it a big ol fat NO.

 Unless he runs unopossed, he won't be elected President..ever.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Yes, Romney can win a Presidential race.

I don't think it's going to happen, but its possible.  He's incredibly charismatic, and that (unfortunately) counts for a lot.

[Kevin]

Romney is underestimated and underestimating a canidate in politics is not a wise way to win a victory,In a Romney vs. Clinton matchup Romney would be a tough person for Hillary to beat indeed and the same goes for Obama too!

[DownWithTheLeft]

yeah, just like John Kerry "tounced" Bush in 2004.

and just like Dems said that a B-movie actor named Ronald Reagan would never be elected president.

One thing is for sure:  Democrats have a long history of vastly over-estimating their chances of winning and under-estimating their opponents.

Great way of bringing up examples that aren't even remotely comparable!

Romney trails Hillary by 7 in the last poll I saw. Anyone who can't even beat Hillary is clearly not under-estimated.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=47

Yeah, polls now mean a lot

[Jacobtm]

I think that he could[/i][/u] win against any of the Democrats currently in the field. He'd have a hard time, and he'd need to campaign incredibly hard and incredibly well, but doing things incredibly well seems to be Romney's MO.

As far as disenchanter Republicans go: he's different enough from Bush and co. to give Republicans or independents who lean Republican the belief that he'll break with the same old nonsense.

People right now have prejudices against him because of his religion. However, Iowa is hardly a place known for its great acceptance of diversity and alternative views. However, due to his hard campaigning there, people have come to see that he's not some scary polygamist, but a very effective government executive, and someone who'd run the country rather well. In fact, far from being a polygamist, he's the only Republican who's only been married one time.

Edwards is incredibly vapid, and that will be pounded in should he win the nomination. Clinton has gigantic negatives because of her personality which Romney could exploit, since his negatives are mostly stereotypes that he can disprove. Obama's unforgivable blackness will handicap him more than polls tend to show.

When you get down to it, he's a smart, reasonable man who's proven himself a very good manager. Should he get the nomination, once he begins campaigning, people will realize that he's completely qualified to be President and isn't some weird religious nutjob.


This doesn't mean he WILL win, but that I definitely see him as having a chance.

[poughies]

against Edwards I think he can.... there its a long shot..... but i think he can win. I don't think he will though.

[WalterMitty]

not in 2008.

[Sam Spade]

The Mormon thing just kills him down South.  I can't give him more than 5% odds, at best (should be lower).

Otherwise, he would have a halfway decent shot - definitely as good as FDT.

[Eraserhead]

He has a good chance against Obama, but he'd be at a very serious disadvantage against Hillary and would get trounced by Edwards.

...and you figure this how? He would have a far better shot against Clinton than Obama.

[poughies]

He has a good chance against Obama, but he'd be at a very serious disadvantage against Hillary and would get trounced by Edwards.

...and you figure this how? He would have a far better shot against Clinton than Obama.

maybe the racist angle? I don't know.... Romney only chance I said was against Edwards... Edwards playing liberal.

This is the scenerio I see Bloomberg jumping into.

[Person Man]

I said yes, but it would be very very hard. I think him and HRC are the most misunderestimated candidates. I would say the most overestimated would be FT.

[useful idiot]

He has a good chance against Obama, but he'd be at a very serious disadvantage against Hillary and would get trounced by Edwards.

...and you figure this how? He would have a far better shot against Clinton than Obama.

Because the people that wouldn't vote for him because of his religion would be far less likely to vote for a liberal black man. Add to that the fact that Obama doesn't nearly live up to the hype: he's genuinely boring, not the man we saw at the 2004 convention, which is the entire basis for his hype. He's scarily unqualified, and he has a weird name and abnormal background. His support lies in young people, urban yuppies who support him because of his race, and Hollywood types. Clinton won't lose any Kerry states and will pick up Ohio for sure, with a good probability of picking up Iowa and New Mexico, possibly Florida as well.

[Eraserhead]

He has a good chance against Obama, but he'd be at a very serious disadvantage against Hillary and would get trounced by Edwards.

...and you figure this how? He would have a far better shot against Clinton than Obama.

Because the people that wouldn't vote for him because of his religion would be far less likely to vote for a liberal black man. Add to that the fact that Obama doesn't nearly live up to the hype: he's genuinely boring, not the man we saw at the 2004 convention, which is the entire basis for his hype. He's scarily unqualified, and he has a weird name and abnormal background. His support lies in young people, urban yuppies who support him because of his race, and Hollywood types. Clinton won't lose any Kerry states and will pick up Ohio for sure, with a good probability of picking up Iowa and New Mexico, possibly Florida as well.

This is all based on your personal opinions though. Fundraising, general election polling, favorability numbers would all point to Obama being a far stronger candidate than Clinton. Half of the country says they won't vote for Clinton...something like that will be insanely difficult to overcome in the general (perhaps even against someone like Romney).

[skybridge]

I'm not going to suggest that Romney is a strong general election candidate, but people do underestimate him. Moral fingerpointing aside, he is a skilled executive. From nothing, he led the endorsement and fundraising races and polls ahead in the early primary states. He has yet to raise his national profile, but writing him off because of his religion is unfair. The flip-flopping is an admittedly more serious issue--how is he going to explain his opposition to gay marriage when unions were granted under his governorship--but this video shows he has his move to the right covered too:

http://www.romneyfacts.com/

[useful idiot]

He has a good chance against Obama, but he'd be at a very serious disadvantage against Hillary and would get trounced by Edwards.

...and you figure this how? He would have a far better shot against Clinton than Obama.

Because the people that wouldn't vote for him because of his religion would be far less likely to vote for a liberal black man. Add to that the fact that Obama doesn't nearly live up to the hype: he's genuinely boring, not the man we saw at the 2004 convention, which is the entire basis for his hype. He's scarily unqualified, and he has a weird name and abnormal background. His support lies in young people, urban yuppies who support him because of his race, and Hollywood types. Clinton won't lose any Kerry states and will pick up Ohio for sure, with a good probability of picking up Iowa and New Mexico, possibly Florida as well.

This is all based on your personal opinions though. Fundraising, general election polling, favorability numbers would all point to Obama being a far stronger candidate than Clinton. Half of the country says they won't vote for Clinton...something like that will be insanely difficult to overcome in the general  (perhaps even against someone like Romney).

Most everything this far out is speculation and opinion. Obama's fundraising doesn't seem to be helping him very much, because Clinton is still way out ahead of Obama in nearly every poll for the nod. Mitt Romney and Obama are both so unfamiliar to the public(outside IA and NH) that general election polling for matchups against each other mean nothing. Thats the same reason why favourability ratings don't really account for much; the fact is Obama has way too many handicaps that Hillary just doesn't have. Hillary has 3x the amount of national office experience that Obama does and she's only been in the senate for one term. He's too much of a newcomer, and his lack of polish, policy knowledge, and debating skills are becoming really apparent. Hillary has done really well in the debates and after running as a moderate in the primaries she doesn't have to do a flip flop to grab indies and the base will stick with her anyway to make sure a Republican doesn't get the presidency. One sad fact about Obama's lack of potency is that from everything I've heard African Americans still prefer Hillary.

[Eraserhead]

He has a good chance against Obama, but he'd be at a very serious disadvantage against Hillary and would get trounced by Edwards.

...and you figure this how? He would have a far better shot against Clinton than Obama.

Because the people that wouldn't vote for him because of his religion would be far less likely to vote for a liberal black man. Add to that the fact that Obama doesn't nearly live up to the hype: he's genuinely boring, not the man we saw at the 2004 convention, which is the entire basis for his hype. He's scarily unqualified, and he has a weird name and abnormal background. His support lies in young people, urban yuppies who support him because of his race, and Hollywood types. Clinton won't lose any Kerry states and will pick up Ohio for sure, with a good probability of picking up Iowa and New Mexico, possibly Florida as well.

This is all based on your personal opinions though. Fundraising, general election polling, favorability numbers would all point to Obama being a far stronger candidate than Clinton. Half of the country says they won't vote for Clinton...something like that will be insanely difficult to overcome in the general  (perhaps even against someone like Romney).

Most everything this far out is speculation and opinion. Obama's fundraising doesn't seem to be helping him very much, because Clinton is still way out ahead of Obama in nearly every poll for the nod. Mitt Romney and Obama are both so unfamiliar to the public(outside IA and NH) that general election polling for matchups against each other mean nothing. Thats the same reason why favourability ratings don't really account for much; the fact is Obama has way too many handicaps that Hillary just doesn't have. Hillary has 3x the amount of national office experience that Obama does and she's only been in the senate for one term. He's too much of a newcomer, and his lack of polish, policy knowledge, and debating skills are becoming really apparent. Hillary has done really well in the debates and after running as a moderate in the primaries she doesn't have to do a flip flop to grab indies and the base will stick with her anyway to make sure a Republican doesn't get the presidency. One sad fact about Obama's lack of potency is that from everything I've heard African Americans still prefer Hillary.

None of this explains how Hillary will overcome the fact that half of the country pretty much hates her and won't for her. Also you are contradicting your own points by saying that Obama is still unknown to the public but then bragging about the fact that Hillary is leading him among blacks. Many blacks still know very little about him. Not only that but Obama has hardly been to the left of Hillary on the war since entering the Senate... so why would he have to run to "the center"... especially when most of the country hates the war. He just had the sense to oppose it before it happened which Clinton didn't.

[useful idiot]

He has a good chance against Obama, but he'd be at a very serious disadvantage against Hillary and would get trounced by Edwards.

...and you figure this how? He would have a far better shot against Clinton than Obama.

Because the people that wouldn't vote for him because of his religion would be far less likely to vote for a liberal black man. Add to that the fact that Obama doesn't nearly live up to the hype: he's genuinely boring, not the man we saw at the 2004 convention, which is the entire basis for his hype. He's scarily unqualified, and he has a weird name and abnormal background. His support lies in young people, urban yuppies who support him because of his race, and Hollywood types. Clinton won't lose any Kerry states and will pick up Ohio for sure, with a good probability of picking up Iowa and New Mexico, possibly Florida as well.

This is all based on your personal opinions though. Fundraising, general election polling, favorability numbers would all point to Obama being a far stronger candidate than Clinton. Half of the country says they won't vote for Clinton...something like that will be insanely difficult to overcome in the general  (perhaps even against someone like Romney).

Most everything this far out is speculation and opinion. Obama's fundraising doesn't seem to be helping him very much, because Clinton is still way out ahead of Obama in nearly every poll for the nod. Mitt Romney and Obama are both so unfamiliar to the public(outside IA and NH) that general election polling for matchups against each other mean nothing. Thats the same reason why favourability ratings don't really account for much; the fact is Obama has way too many handicaps that Hillary just doesn't have. Hillary has 3x the amount of national office experience that Obama does and she's only been in the senate for one term. He's too much of a newcomer, and his lack of polish, policy knowledge, and debating skills are becoming really apparent. Hillary has done really well in the debates and after running as a moderate in the primaries she doesn't have to do a flip flop to grab indies and the base will stick with her anyway to make sure a Republican doesn't get the presidency. One sad fact about Obama's lack of potency is that from everything I've heard African Americans still prefer Hillary.

None of this explains how Hillary will overcome the fact that half of the country pretty much hates her and won't for her.

Gut feeling . I'm not supporting Hillary for the nomination but I think she's a very skilled campaigner who fights dirty and would take Romney's flip-flopping to task. Obama can't fight as dirty and still be what he claims to be, a change to politics as usual.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was using the unknown label to point out that general election polls between two unknowns are not exactly telling us anything. Most blacks SHOULD know who Obama is by now though, even if they don't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He wouldn't have to run to the center. I wasn't pointing out Hillary's superiority to Obama in this regard, but saying that the Republicans will have a harder time ripping her to shreds as a left winger based on her primary campaigning.

[The Duke]

If things improve dramatically in Iraq or if the Democrats nominate Edwards, then he has a chance.  Even then, though, he would not be favored.

[YRABNNRM]

Yes, any candidate of the two parties who is not out of the mainstream( Kucinich, Tancredo, Gravel, Paul, etc.) has a legitimate chance, depending on the scenario.