• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Romney re-enters GOP fray (1 Viewer)

I really don't think Romney has much of a chance. He's 65 (Or 66, IDK when his birthday is). To me, and too a lot of American's he'll always be that guy that went up to Obama and lost.
 
Higgins86 said:
is it unheard of for someone to run again after losing 4 years before?
Click to expand...

Grover Cleveland did it. Actually ran 3 times in a row, won the first and third time, but not the second.
 
If Romney actually gave a **** about America, he could offer his advice and consultation to the people free of charge. It's not like he can't afford it.

Instead, he wants to be President so he can give himself a tax cut? How detached from reality and humanity is that?

He is a real disappointment and I'm glad he wasn't elected. OTOH, his obvious detachment resulted in re-election of a President who is obviously in over his head. Hello, GOP, better wake up if you really care. Or maybe you don't care. Maybe nobody does.
 
Higgins86 said:
is it unheard of for someone to run again after losing 4 years before?
Click to expand...

William Jennings Bryan did it. But I seriously doubt Romney would want to go through that process again in 2016.
 
Anagram said:
William Jennings Bryan did it. But I seriously doubt Romney would want to go through that process again in 2016.
Click to expand...

Im sure his opponents would welcome him
 
Anagram said:
William Jennings Bryan did it. But I seriously doubt Romney would want to go through that process again in 2016.
Click to expand...

The party would dissuade him, regardless.
 
WCH said:
By the time 2016 rolls around Obama might have increased that number significantly.
Click to expand...

I think you've missed the joke, but if you're taking the 47% as Romney originally used it (missing the joke), then there is no chance of that happening because despite tea party obstructionism the economy is recovering. Though I'm sure that grieves you no end.
 
Moderator's Warning:
NBC's blog, moved to appropriate location
 
Fiddytree said:
The party would dissuade him, regardless.
Click to expand...

It is a foregone conclusion that the GOP will nominate somebody who is even more unelectable than Romney by diving into even deeper extremist waters. It will be Palin or Santorum or Issa, some freakishly unelectable creature. Once you turn the rightwing noise machine on, you can't turn it off.
 
Romney was pretty adamant that he was not going to run again. I, for one, don't look for him to go back on that declaration.

Anyway, he's too old now.
 
head of joaquin said:
It is a foregone conclusion that the GOP will nominate somebody who is even more unelectable than Romney by diving into even deeper extremist waters. It will be Palin or Santorum or Issa, some freakishly unelectable creature. Once you turn the rightwing noise machine on, you can't turn it off.
Click to expand...

It won't be Palin, it probably will not be Santorum. Romney was largely a moderate, northeastern Republican that perceived he had to pander to the Tea Party crowd. It was unfortunate, but I think it was necessary for the election at the time. Some of his elitist remarks were ill-advised to say the least, but he also did not fight back enough to show that the rich and powerful in the country make good leaders. I still preferred Romney to the populist wing of the Republican Party, which was why I voted for him.
 
Fiddytree said:
It won't be Palin, it probably will not be Santorum. Romney was largely a moderate, northeastern Republican that perceived he had to pander to the Tea Party crowd. It was unfortunate, but I think it was necessary for the election at the time. Some of his elitist remarks were ill-advised to say the least, but he also did not fight back enough to show that the rich and powerful in the country make good leaders. I still preferred Romney to the populist wing of the Republican Party, which was why I voted for him.
Click to expand...

This analysis is regrettably spot on. Romney was a decent moderate politician through most of his career. He could have won the election if he had run as the Romney who passed Romneycare. The fact that he had to lurch to the knownothing right to pander to the tea party elements (which Rove foolishly invited into the party to win a few elections) clearly lost him the election, and demonstrates how the tea party, like a golem, is destroying its own creator (something Rove is now painfully aware since he spends most of his time attacking the Palins of the world). Which of course I'm not crying any tears over. Conservatism basically signed its own demographic death warrant when it made its deal with the knownothing tea party types.

But as to Palin, I disagree. I think by 2016 the GOP will be so marginal and so extreme that she is the most likely candidate. She is the quintessence of tea party subliteracy, which is the litmus test for the next nominee.
 
head of joaquin said:
This analysis is regrettably spot on. Romney was a decent moderate politician through most of his career. He could have won the election if he had run as the Romney who passed Romneycare. The fact that he had to lurch to the knownothing right to pander to the tea party elements (which Rove foolishly invited into the party to win a few elections) clearly lost him the election, and demonstrates how the tea party, like a golem, is destroying its own creator (something Rove is now painfully aware since he spends most of his time attacking the Palins of the world). Which of course I'm not crying any tears over. Conservatism basically signed its own demographic death warrant when it made its deal with the knownothing tea party types.

But as to Palin, I disagree. I think by 2016 the GOP will be so marginal and so extreme that she is the most likely candidate. She is the quintessence of tea party subliteracy, which is the litmus test for the next nominee.
Click to expand...

We could be a bit more honest and acknowledge that you would be just as furious over moderate- Bain Capital Romney (who was not with the Tea Party), as you would with the Romney who had passing Tea Party support.

Palin doesn't have the institutional backing to pass through the hurdles. She knew this. You're blowing hot air.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom