Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 01, 2014, 09:05:37 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Presidential Election Trends (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King)
| | |-+  Mitt Romney's political future
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Mitt Romney's political future  (Read 3675 times)
LongIslandLiberal
Newbie
*
Posts: 11
United States


View Profile
« on: January 17, 2009, 09:21:27 pm »
Ignore

Okay, guys. I've been mulling over about this for weeks and I've come to the conclusion that MITT ROMNEY WILL NEVER RUN FOR NATIONAL OFFICE AGAIN!!!! Why have I made this conclusion? Simple, here is the main reason: In order for one to win a presidential election, he must do well in the Rust Belt (Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania). In order to do well in the Rust Belt, one must have a substantial amount of support from union members and leaders. In order to GET the support of union members and leaders, one needs to not go on television numerous times and blatantly bash the UAW, as Romney did several times this December during the auto bailout. So, this in mind, if Romney is stupid enough to run for president ever again, the clips of him disparaging union workers and leaders will be very essential weapons in his opponents' attack ad arsenals.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.80
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29447
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2009, 09:47:49 pm »
Ignore

In the primary it doesn't matter Union memebers are all Dems. In the general Union members are what 20% of overall voters. OH I forgot You guys are going to pass the card check system. Great just what we need. Thousands of newly unionised workers going on strike driving the economy into a deep depression. Under thosse circumstances Romney could beat Obama in a landslide. I have heard this arguement of several on the left that Romney is done cause he would need the Great LAkes and he would not be supported by Unions so thats impossible. DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT. Romney is not a one region candidate. He has emense popularity out west even in states that aren't mormon like CO(2% mormon)were he got 60% without ever setting foot in the state. He also has strength in New England though it may not translate to much except a chance to win NH. Romney would have a lot of strength in the midwest despite not being like be Unions. You don;t have to be the darling of the UAW to win in IN just get more then 46% and actually organise in the state. Ohio too was very close despite the 7 point Obama win nationally. Romney can win MI, had McCain not pulled out that would have been under 8 points. and Romney can beat that definately. Plus if Chrylser or GM goes down on Obama's watch it won't look good for him.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10029
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2009, 10:00:19 pm »
Ignore

In the primary it doesn't matter Union memebers are all Dems. In the general Union members are what 20% of overall voters. OH I forgot You guys are going to pass the card check system. Great just what we need. Thousands of newly unionised workers going on strike driving the economy into a deep depression. Under thosse circumstances Romney could beat Obama in a landslide. I have heard this arguement of several on the left that Romney is done cause he would need the Great LAkes and he would not be supported by Unions so thats impossible. DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT. Romney is not a one region candidate. He has emense popularity out west even in states that aren't mormon like CO(2% mormon)were he got 60% without ever setting foot in the state. He also has strength in New England though it may not translate to much except a chance to win NH. Romney would have a lot of strength in the midwest despite not being like be Unions. You don;t have to be the darling of the UAW to win in IN just get more then 46% and actually organise in the state. Ohio too was very close despite the 7 point Obama win nationally. Romney can win MI, had McCain not pulled out that would have been under 8 points. and Romney can beat that definately. Plus if Chrylser or GM goes down on Obama's watch it won't look good for him.

Romney might win some primaries in the north -- in states like Massachusetts and Michigan that have no chance of voting for a Republican nominee for President in 2012.

How would Romney do in the South? Would he be a religious equivalent of Mike Dukakis? In that case the South votes in enough states for someone familiar to them that Obama wins a landslide. But that's the trouble for attempting to defeat an incumbent President: the challenger usually has too many ways in which to lose. 

The GOP must win the South -- all of the South -- to have a chance to elect a President of the United States these days.



 
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
Psychic Octopus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9171
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2009, 11:20:30 pm »
Ignore

His last shot is 2012 for the presidency, and he is right now the clear frontrunner for the GOP.
Logged

paul718
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4022


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -4.35

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2009, 01:17:53 am »
Ignore


So, this in mind, if Romney is stupid enough to run for president ever again, the clips of him disparaging union workers and leaders will be very essential weapons in his opponents' attack ad arsenals.

lol @ the Republican nomination being decided by union support
Logged
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2009, 01:24:14 am »
Ignore

Meh, could be relevant in the Rustbelt (which has a fair few swing states)
Logged

this is real
Reaganfan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12272
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2009, 08:07:57 am »
Ignore

Don't doubt Mitt for a second. Had Huckabee dropped out back in January 2007 when people kept telling him to, Mitt would have won Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, and quite possibly South Carolina then Florida and had unstoppable momentum. With his economic credentials and executive experience against Barack Obama...and his good debating skills...with the economic meltdown...we could well have had a President Mitt Romney right now.
Logged
Duke
AHDuke99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19758


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2009, 01:01:46 pm »
Ignore

Mitt will run. It's not like the GOP relies on the union vote anyway. What an absurd reason.
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29447
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2009, 09:14:20 pm »
Ignore

Don't doubt Mitt for a second. Had Huckabee dropped out back in January 2007 when people kept telling him to, Mitt would have won Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, and quite possibly South Carolina then Florida and had unstoppable momentum. With his economic credentials and executive experience against Barack Obama...and his good debating skills...with the economic meltdown...we could well have had a President Mitt Romney right now.

My thoughts exactly.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



paul718
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4022


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -4.35

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2009, 12:28:16 am »
Ignore

If you've read any of the opinions he's written or seen any of his TV interviews , he is currently running for President.
Logged
Nixon in '80
nixon1980
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1322
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.84, S: -5.39

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 10, 2009, 02:51:37 am »
Ignore

If you've read any of the opinions he's written or seen any of his TV interviews , he is currently running for President.

And has been since CPAC 2008.
Logged

“Sarah Palin is the only part of the campaign that I won’t comment on publicly.” - Meghan McCain
Mr. Morden
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19217
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 10, 2009, 03:17:53 am »

If you've read any of the opinions he's written or seen any of his TV interviews , he is currently running for President.

Not to mention the fact that his PAC is transparently a front for his 2012 candidacy:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=89516.0

Logged

HOG & Blondie: A Tale of Atlas Future

What is your opinion of this thread?

Watch Dave being briefed by the mods.

Being a moderator is basically like one giant party.  Except you're the one ruining the party and everyone hates you.
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10149
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 11, 2009, 10:41:36 am »
Ignore

If he runs he will lose the primary.
Logged
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9466
Czech Republic


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 11, 2009, 08:36:52 pm »
Ignore

Don't doubt Mitt for a second. Had Huckabee dropped out back in January 2007 when people kept telling him to, Mitt would have won Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, and quite possibly South Carolina then Florida and had unstoppable momentum. With his economic credentials and executive experience against Barack Obama...and his good debating skills...with the economic meltdown...we could well have had a President Mitt Romney right now.

Until late 2007, no one expected him to come even close to winning in IA. Given his stronger than expected showing there, there was no reason for Huckabee to drop out in January 2007 2008.

If anything, it was Romney who prevented Huckabee from getting the nomination, not the other way around.

Back then he was actually doing better than Romney, so the only "people" who "kept telling him" to drop out were hardcore Romney supporters who became bitter toward Huckabee because he is a genuine conservative (as opposed to Romney) and was doing better than him.

And LOL at his having "economic credentials"--he has none.

You are simply trying to make Huckabee a scapegoat for everything.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 08:43:30 pm by I could not think of a good user name »Logged

Clearly the solution is to privatize presidential elections.

So, in less than four years, get excited for the 2016 MetLife Financial U Pick The Prez Extravaganza. If you tweet a picture of your completed ballot with the hashtag #ivoted, you could win a trip for two to the inauguration or an iTunes gift card.
paul718
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4022


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -4.35

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2009, 06:29:31 pm »
Ignore


Until late 2007, no one expected him to come even close to winning in IA. Given his stronger than expected showing there, there was no reason for Huckabee to drop out in January 2007 2008.

If anything, it was Romney who prevented Huckabee from getting the nomination, not the other way around.

Back then he was actually doing better than Romney, so the only "people" who "kept telling him" to drop out were hardcore Romney supporters who became bitter toward Huckabee because he is a genuine conservative (as opposed to Romney) and was doing better than him.

Iowa - 1/3/08
1.  Huckabee (17 delegates)
2.  Romney (12 delegates)
3.  McCain (3 delegates)
3.  Thompson (3 delegates)

Wyoming - 1/5/08
1. Romney (8 )
2. Thompson (3)
3. Hunter (1)

New Hampshire - 1/8/08
1.  McCain (7)
2.  Romney (4)
3.  Huckabee (1)

Michigan - 1/15/08
1.  Romney (24)
2.  McCain (5)
3.  Huckabee (1)

Nevada - 1/19/08
1.  Romney (17)
2.  Paul (4)
3.  McCain (4)

South Carolina - 1/19/08
1.  McCain (19)
2.  Huckabee (5)
3.  Thompson (0)

Florida - 1/29/08
1.  McCain (57)
2.  Romney 
3.  Giuliani

Maine - 2/1-3/08
1.  Romney (18)
2.  McCain
3.  Paul 

Super Tuesday - 2/5/08
1.  McCain (608)
2.  Romney (197)
3.  Huckabee (160)

Total Delegates through 2/5/08
1.  McCain (703)
2.  Romney (280)
3.  Huckabee (187)

Romney drops out on 2/7/08. 

The only time Huckabee every actually led, was right after Iowa. 


Quote


And LOL at his having "economic credentials"--he has none.

What do you consider to be "economic credentials"?
Logged
Warner for Senate '14
benconstine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30559
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2009, 06:36:26 pm »
Ignore

Romney has no political future.  His only chance to win was 2008, and he failed.  Even if he gets the nomination in 2012, he'll be at a disadvantage against Obama.  In 2008, Romney was exposed as the unethical slimeball that he is, and if the American people have forgotten by 2012, they will be reminded.  Romney has no future, and it is a good thing.
Logged

Obama High's debate team:

"Now let me be clear...I...I...um...uh...now let me be clear.  I strongly condemn the affirmative in the strongest possible terms, and I am closely monitoring their arguments.  Let me be clear on this."
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9466
Czech Republic


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2009, 09:05:34 pm »
Ignore

Don't doubt Mitt for a second. Had Huckabee dropped out back in January 2007 when people kept telling him to, Mitt would have won Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, and quite possibly South Carolina then Florida and had unstoppable momentum. With his economic credentials and executive experience against Barack Obama...and his good debating skills...with the economic meltdown...we could well have had a President Mitt Romney right now.

Until late 2007, no one expected him to come even close to winning in IA. Given his stronger than expected showing there, there was no reason for Huckabee to drop out in January 2007 2008.

If anything, it was Romney who prevented Huckabee from getting the nomination, not the other way around.

Back then he was actually doing better than Romney, so the only "people" who "kept telling him" to drop out were hardcore Romney supporters who became bitter toward Huckabee because he is a genuine conservative (as opposed to Romney) and was doing better than him.

And LOL at his having "economic credentials"--he has none.

You are simply trying to make Huckabee a scapegoat for everything.

This has to be a joke.

It does not "have" to be a "joke". Nor is it, for that matter. I was absolutely serious when I said it, just like I am absolutely serious right now. If anything, your disrespect for criticism of Romney (and support of Huckabee) serves only to prove my point--like many Romney supporters, you are intolerant toward any suggestion that Romney is not the best.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 09:24:54 pm by I could not think of a good user name »Logged

Clearly the solution is to privatize presidential elections.

So, in less than four years, get excited for the 2016 MetLife Financial U Pick The Prez Extravaganza. If you tweet a picture of your completed ballot with the hashtag #ivoted, you could win a trip for two to the inauguration or an iTunes gift card.
Duke
AHDuke99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19758


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2009, 09:28:36 pm »
Ignore

Officepark,

What do you consider economic credentials? Romney ran several businesses, turned around the Olympics, and ran the state of Massachusetts. He graduated cum laude with a MBA/JD from Harvard. What on earth has Huckabee done that would be real credentials in terms of knowing how the economy works. I've never been Mitt's biggest fan, but if the economy is still in bad shape in 2012, why wouldn't we give him a shot? He knows his economics.
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10149
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2009, 10:23:26 pm »
Ignore

Officepark,

What do you consider economic credentials? Romney ran several businesses, turned around the Olympics, and ran the state of Massachusetts. He graduated cum laude with a MBA/JD from Harvard. What on earth has Huckabee done that would be real credentials in terms of knowing how the economy works. I've never been Mitt's biggest fan, but if the economy is still in bad shape in 2012, why wouldn't we give him a shot? He knows his economics.

Mitt Romney is the Republican's John Kerry.
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29447
United States


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2009, 06:30:32 pm »
Ignore


If anything, it was Romney who prevented Huckabee from getting the nomination, not the other way around.

If thats the case why didn't Huckabee win any competative race(note Kansas does not count cause McCain didn't campaign there) after Romney dropped out? Usually the spoiler is the guy in third place who is farthest away from winning of the three candidates but takes enough of a certain electorate away to prevent one member of the top two from winning. Of course you may still beleive Huck was second. He wasn't, as Paul pointed out, on 2/7/08 the day Romney got out Romney had 100 more delegates then Huck. Romney also beat Huck in the nationwide primary popular vote even counting the states after Romney got out. If it was Romney who prevented Huck from winning why wasn't Huck able to beat McCain in at least one competative state like VA or TX? Thats because all of Romney's voters went to McCain or stayed home. Even my mother who hates McCain's guts voted for McCain just to spite Huck who she hated even more. So this line about, "If anything, it was Romney who prevented Huckabee from getting the nomination, not the other way around." , is just unsubstatiated BS.



And LOL at his having "economic credentials"--he has none.

You are simply trying to make Huckabee a scapegoat for everything.

I forget who was it that put out a statement about the Stimulus package being un-religious? More unsubstantiated BS. If thats the best he's got we will be in serious trouble if he is nominated in 2012, he can't even address specifics. Middle Class suburbanites aren't going to lose any sleep over a stimulus package being un-religious. If anything this passed election proved that when jobs start vanishing, savings get depleted, homes get foreclosed, and cars repossessed people stop caring about wedge issues, and about religion, and even about National Security. All people want to hear about is who has the best economic plan. Suburbanites will lose sleep over facts, like the Stimulus package taking 2 years before half of it is spent, it being loaded up with projects that will take years before a shovel hits the dirt, being loaded with paybacks to special interests, and laden with dangerous provisions that threaten the quality of our Health Care. 

Now which candidate was first to release an alternative outline for a stimulus? It wasn't Huck. Who was the one who proposed a plan to restore Detroit automakers. It wasn't Huck. Who was the only Republican to offer a real Health Care Plan? It wasn't Huck. No while Mitt did all these things Huck was jawing away about nonsense on his show and wrote one bone headed Op-ed. Who has first hand experience with Detroit and the Auto industry. It ain't Huck. Who has an MBA and was an A+ student getting it(unlike Bush who obviously spent his college years boozing and hanging out). It wasn't Huck. Which candidate called for investing more in R&D  for Energy and Transportation technology; Manufacturing and Industrial technology and more. It wasn't Huck. Who spent 30 years turning around bankrupt businesses. Sure as hell wasn't Huck. Who spent 3 years cleaning up corruption and turning a 300 milliobn deficit into a 100 million dollar suprlus at the 2002 Winter Olympics(after shelling out large amounts for security that was unanticipated b/c of 9/11. Someone planned ahead). That definately wasn't Huck. 

So Mitt has not economic credentials. Well Huck definately has less then Mitt and if Mitt don't have any, then Huck isn't qualified to be dog catcher. Try again officepark.

« Last Edit: February 13, 2009, 06:35:14 pm by North Carolina Yankee »Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10029
United States


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2009, 08:59:06 pm »
Ignore

Don't doubt Mitt for a second. Had Huckabee dropped out back in January 2007 when people kept telling him to, Mitt would have won Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, and quite possibly South Carolina then Florida and had unstoppable momentum. With his economic credentials and executive experience against Barack Obama...and his good debating skills...with the economic meltdown...we could well have had a President Mitt Romney right now.

Romney has yet to show that he can win in the South, and Huckabee has yet to show that he can win outside the South. If Obama wins any former Confederate State in 2012 -- even Virginia, whose "southern" status has become suspect -- then lots of people will be watching basketball games or old movies with occasional flips of the remote to see how 'bad' the landslide is. If Obama wins one state from among Ohio, Indiana, or Missouri, then it's all over.

As hard as the Republican Party has become entwined with the Hard Right that offends sentiments in majorities in certain states (Gore2000 + NH, Kerry2004 + IA + NM) it will have a difficult time picking off any of the "safe" states that Democrats won four or five  out of five times in Presidential elections.  To win, the Republican Party needs a moderate nominee to negate the fear and loathing that New England and the West Coast have of a Party so connected to the Hard Right. Can a moderate win the GOP nomination? Hardly! 

Quote
Until late 2007, no one expected him to come even close to winning in IA. Given his stronger than expected showing there, there was no reason for Huckabee to drop out in January 2007 2008.

Iowa is incredibly fickle in its primaries.

Quote
If anything, it was Romney who prevented Huckabee from getting the nomination, not the other way around.

McCain did that by winning winner-take-all primaries in States that the GOP stood no chance of winning in November. Sometimes that is the way that one plays the game.

Quote
Back then he was actually doing better than Romney, so the only "people" who "kept telling him" to drop out were hardcore Romney supporters who became bitter toward Huckabee because he is a genuine conservative (as opposed to Romney) and was doing better than him.

McCain ran as a moderate with no marked regional weakness. McCain did his primary opponents in.

Quote
And LOL at his having "economic credentials"--he has none.

You are simply trying to make Huckabee a scapegoat for everything.

Until the GOP becomes a moderate party instead of a party holding values that some regions that lock up 90% of the 270 electoral votes needed for victory, it isn't going to win the Presidency except in razor-thin victories in which everything goes right, as in 2000 and 2004. Do you want a scapegoat for what went wrong with the Republican Party?

His name is Karl Rove, whose plan for a "permanent majority" failed because it depended upon 49% of the electorate being unable to attract 2% of the rest.
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9466
Czech Republic


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2009, 11:19:02 pm »
Ignore

Another person now proves my point. "Unsubstantiated BS" is just a pejorative that you use to dismiss my negative opinion of Romney/positive opinion of Huckabee.

Usually the spoiler is the guy in third place who is farthest away from winning of the three candidates but takes enough of a certain electorate away to prevent one member of the top two from winning. Of course you may still beleive Huck was second. He wasn't, as Paul pointed out, on 2/7/08 the day Romney got out Romney had 100 more delegates then Huck. Romney also beat Huck in the nationwide primary popular vote even counting the states after Romney got out.

If it was Romney who was in second place, then why did he drop out before Huckabee? Further, you are intentionally using the results as of February 7 just so that you can put Romney ahead of Huckabee. You should be looking at the results when the winner (McCain) receieved the delegates necessary to get the nomination. The delegate counts at the end (which is what really matters) has nothing to do with the delegate counts in an intermediate stage such as February 7. Also, your use of the word "usually" suggests that Huckabee was not necessarily the spoiler, even if he was indeed in third place as you claim. Like the Democrats when their own candidate lost in 2000, you also are disregarding the fact that, like in the general election, popular vote does not matter; delegates (primaries)/electoral votes (general election) do.

Quote
I forget who was it that put out a statement about the Stimulus package being un-religious?

Having religion as part of the reason for one's opposition to the stimulus does not equal lack of economic credentials and to suggest that it does is being at least as anti religious as the stimulus.

Quote
If thats the best he's got we will be in serious trouble if he is nominated in 2012, he can't even address specifics. Middle Class suburbanites aren't going to lose any sleep over a stimulus package being un-religious. If anything this passed election proved that when jobs start vanishing, savings get depleted, homes get foreclosed, and cars repossessed people stop caring about wedge issues, and about religion, and even about National Security.

Well, that is not "the best he's got". You are suggesting that his only talking point is opposition to the stimulus because of religion, which is obviously false. Plus, your claim that "Middle Class suburbanites aren't going to lose any sleep over a stimulus package being un-religious" does not make the stimulus's religious stance irrelevant, nor does it make it any more acceptable. I must also note that your use of the term "wedge issues" leads me to question if you are really a conservative as your PM score suggests (especially on social issues), though now I understand why you hate Huckabee.

Quote
Suburbanites will lose sleep over facts, like the Stimulus package taking 2 years before half of it is spent, it being loaded up with projects that will take years before a shovel hits the dirt, being loaded with paybacks to special interests, and laden with dangerous provisions that threaten the quality of our Health Care.

Those traits of the stimulus being facts does not mean that the stimulus's anti religious stance is not a fact. You are also suggesting that, just because Huckabee notes the anti religious stance of the stimulus, he must be OK with the rest of what you mentioned, which is false. You are arguing that they are mutually exclusive: either one criticizes the stimulus for its anti religious stance, or for the rest of what you mentioned, but not both.

Also, your claim that "Huck was jawing away about nonsense on his show and wrote one bone headed Op-ed" again proves my claim.

Plus, having an MBA (or a college degree in general) does not make Romney (or anyone) "qualified to be dog catcher" either. For example, Obama, too, graduated from Harvard and even chaired the Harvard Law Review (or at least that is what most people think of him), but that does not make him a good president. So, I will move on now to your claims of Romney cleaning up corruption (which for the record has nothing to do with economics, but whatever) and deficit to surplus; Huckabee did both while being a governor himself. And lastly, you mention "a real health care plan", which is certainly irrelevant; you have not even explained what you consider to be "real"! (Plenty of your other claims in that paragraph require explanation as well.)
Logged

Clearly the solution is to privatize presidential elections.

So, in less than four years, get excited for the 2016 MetLife Financial U Pick The Prez Extravaganza. If you tweet a picture of your completed ballot with the hashtag #ivoted, you could win a trip for two to the inauguration or an iTunes gift card.
Warner for Senate '14
benconstine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30559
United States


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: February 13, 2009, 11:30:23 pm »
Ignore

Huckabee cost Romney the nomination.  I think it is very likely that, had Huckabee dropped out in 2007, Romney would have been the GOP nominee.

Also, you can only use the data up until February 7, because that is when Romney dropped out.  It would make no sense to use data from when Romney wasn't in the race, because that isn't indicative of the real results.  It has no real relevance to the disucssion.

I'd give up now, if I were you.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 05:28:01 pm by Dave Leip »Logged

Obama High's debate team:

"Now let me be clear...I...I...um...uh...now let me be clear.  I strongly condemn the affirmative in the strongest possible terms, and I am closely monitoring their arguments.  Let me be clear on this."
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9466
Czech Republic


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2009, 12:03:37 am »
Ignore

Well, I certainly say that even if Huckabee did cost Romney the nomination and cause McCain to win it, I would rather have that than Romney himself being the nominee.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2009, 12:47:22 am by I could not think of a good user name »Logged

Clearly the solution is to privatize presidential elections.

So, in less than four years, get excited for the 2016 MetLife Financial U Pick The Prez Extravaganza. If you tweet a picture of your completed ballot with the hashtag #ivoted, you could win a trip for two to the inauguration or an iTunes gift card.
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10149
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: February 14, 2009, 12:37:19 am »
Ignore

Officepark,

What do you consider economic credentials? Romney ran several businesses, turned around the Olympics, and ran the state of Massachusetts. He graduated cum laude with a MBA/JD from Harvard. What on earth has Huckabee done that would be real credentials in terms of knowing how the economy works. I've never been Mitt's biggest fan, but if the economy is still in bad shape in 2012, why wouldn't we give him a shot? He knows his economics.
Mitt Romney is the Republican's John Kerry.

So was Kerry. But look at it, both Kerry and Romney have flip-flop on issues, both are from MA, both of them ran for president and fell short. The only that that is different is one got the nom and the other didn't. Now, don't get me wrong I'm not saying Romney is a bad guy or anything, but he is the Republican's John Kerry.

Only Romney is actually qualified to be President.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines