Pick the guy who lost twice in a row to beat the first Republican candidate that people are really enthusiastic for in years?
Lol you see why Republicans are such a joke.
I get what you're saying and I'm not coming at this from some elitist "stupid racist Trump supporters" kind of standpoint. I just don't think Trump can win, and given someone like Mitt Romney who has been proven right on many issues he was lambasted for in 2012, I think the third time could really be the charm.
Didn't Romney boost to get unemployment down to 6% by 2016 whilst Obama has got it to what 4% already
He's battle tested, which means that he's prepared for all of the attacks Democrats will throw at him - considering they pretty much dug up everything they could find in 2012 and he'll learn from his mistakes last time.
He's a skilled debater - we all remember that 1st presidential debate, and even in the debates that were deemed ties, Romney was still proven right in the long run, which leads to my next point.
For a former governor, he's surprisingly well versed in foreign policy. He was right about Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Mali and Syria, even though he was mocked by Obama.
He has bipartisan experience - You've gotta get along with Democrats when they're 85% of your legislature.
He has a record of turning things around- ex. SLC Olympics and MA budget
Lastly, He's a uniter, not a divider. Could you imagine him saying something along the lines of what Obama said about Republicans having common cause with America hating Iranians? I know I couldn't picture it.
Personal reason- This is a good man of faith and integrity and he didn't deserve to be raked over the coals like he was in 2012. I think he should get a chance to turn the country around.
1. Eh by that reasons John Kerry, John Mccain and Al Gore should all run in 2016. Running a campaign means yes you have experience but Romney's campaign was a disaster by any stretch. Remember when the GOP kept trying to get Bush, Ryan, Daniels, Christie etc to run in March because Romney was struggling against Santorum. If it wasn't for his PAC destroying Gingrich in Florida then it could have been worse. Whether it was his 47% comment, his robotic nature, let Detroit go bankrupt, his offshore tax records, binders full of women, Benghazi
It's like saying General Custer was battle tested-he was but he sucked at it.
2. What about the Benghazi comments? IIRC most of his gaffes came from the Republican primary, and even if he is judged as good debater that doesn't make a difference when your on stage with someone like Trump-I've heard for months how Christie, Bush and Jindal were great debaters but it doesn't make a difference. The same goes for the GE-Kerry was seen to have won the 2004 debates but that didn't matter.
3. Partly, as the saying goes a clock is right twice a day. The Obama position on Iran was much more acceptable than Romney, and look at Romney's handling of the Benghazi event in the campaign-he completely attacked Obama for something he didn't even do. Again Foreign policy shouldn't be as simple as saying 'Russia is bad, we need troops in Iraq' because it's not always that simple. Iraq had an extremely ineffective PM who didn't build up a coalition, and as we've seen in 2004 and 2006 even with US troops on the ground we still have violence.
4. I doubt that's going to mean that Schumer, Reid and co are going to work with him in 2016, hyperparistianship and all.
5. He also had a record of outsourcing jobs, using offshore tax havens and of losing due to this record (See 1994)
6. 47%, yeah that's a uniting comment
7. So was Ed Miliband, John Kerry, John Mccain, Al Gore, George W.Bush, Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter and the other long list of political losers
