Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
Posts: 25,719
|
 |
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2014, 05:16:09 PM » |
|
If these are, in fact, real numbers, I don't see why Mitt Romney wouldn't try again in 2016. He's really no worse than any of the rest of these folks as a candidate, or a potential President for that matter.
Romney is sort of the GOP's new Tom Dewey. Dewey, however, ran for President in a far, far more Democratic era against (A) wartime FDR and (B) Harry Truman, whose campaign strategy was brilliant.
Why was Truman's strategy brilliant? Because it made Dewey look impotent. Dewey was a moderate-to-liberal Republican nominated on a moderate "me-too" GOP platform. The composition of the GOP House and Senate delegations, however, were considerably more conservative, and not inclined to support Dewey's rather liberal platform. Seeing this, Truman, during his acceptance speech, challenged the GOP to enact their platform into law between then and Election Day. Truman indicated he would not veto it, and the GOP had majorities in both houses of Congress. Of course, this didn't happen, and Truman was re-elected by a small margin (after being considered an underdog for the whole campaign). Truman ran against the "do nothing 80th (Republican) Congress, and many of the "do-nothing" Republicans were, in truth, inclined to "do nothing" to seriously help Dewey get elected.
Romney wouldn't have that problem in 2016. He'd be running against Hillary Clinton, who will have a WORLD of negatives (without the incumbency advantage). He would have time to regroup and reinvent himself a bit; Nixon did this and when he won in 1968, many of the negatives associated with "Nixon" had faded away. He's more sober and more qualified than a whole lot of the folks mentioned, and he's not a Bush. He didn't do abysmally against Obama, and a shift of a small number of votes in FL and OH alone would have made the EV count much, much closer. The GOP could do far worse than nominating Mitt Romney, a guy who is not only qualified, but thoroughly vetted as well.
|
