Talk Elections

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.

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.



 

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

lol @ the Republican nomination being decided by union support

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

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.

Mitt will run. It's not like the GOP relies on the union vote anyway. What an absurd reason.

My thoughts exactly.

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.

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

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

If he runs he will lose the primary.

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.

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. 



What do you consider to be "economic credentials"?

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.)

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.

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.

1. Romney got out casue he was in a hopeless position. Huck was too but he was never serious and thus stayed in for the extra attention

2. It stands to reason that if Romney beat Huck in both delegates and Popular votes through Feb 7, that Romney would have beat Huck among both delegates and popular votes had he stayed in till March.

3. You don't want religion to be your head line when people are losing there jobs, homes, and savings. That turns people away because they want to hear about economic problems. If you want to include religion in your arguement thats fine but make the headline something that people can sink there teeth into.

4. You have no reason to question my conservative credentials. All I said was a statement about the voting habits of panicked population. All preconceived notions fly out the window and all that matters is, Who will get me a job?, who will deal with high gas prices?, Who will deal with the declining value my home?. You have no reason to question my conservative beliefs and values over a statement that you misinterpreted.

5. The term Wedge issue is a term used to describe any issue that distracts from a problem that gets people to vote for party that otherwise would not just because of that one issue. It does not make me any less of a conservative to use the term.

6. I did not say that Huck was "okay" with the rest of the stimulus. He comes across that way to independents and moderates who decide the elections. If they see a headline about religion and a stimulus bill they will be less likely to read it but if its a headline that reads "Stimulus bill will limited effects over the next few years" That will grab peoples attention. Now you are reading too much into what I said. My point was it was a poor statement on the stimulus and he isn't getting the point accrossed as well as others are.

7. The reason I said it was boneheaded was because it wasn't well though out and has limited appeal beyond Evens and Social Conservatives.

8. Obama is a Lawyer, Romney is a businessman.

9. When I mentioned Romney cleaning up corruption and turing a deficit into a surplus that was in context of his work at the winter Olympic games. Huck did not clean up corruption in Arkansas in fact made it worse with is spending and tax hikes.

10. When I said "Real Health Care" plan it was a jab at the half measures the GOP has been proposing over the years such as Health Savings Account, a good idead but it be better as a part of Plan then being the end all be all of GOP Health Care reform. Romney was the only candidate on the GOP side to offer a plan and is the only one on either side to have experience on the issue. And I think Health Care is very relevent as it is probably the number 2 or 3 concern on many peoples minds.

What else was confusing you about my post. I am not a mind reader.

I think he'll run but not win. He reminds me of William Seward. he'll be a candidate for Treasury Secretary after Obama is defeated in 2012.