• 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 Third Party Candidacy??

David G said:
yank may be right about the timing.

As for winning - he wouldn't be hoping to. The whole point is to derail Trump... by siphoning off votes... not win themselves. I'm sure it's a bitter pill, as it would assure a Democratic victory this time for the Presidency. I suspect, however, they are trying to galvanize R voter turnout - so as not to lose the Senate entirely, and lose ground in the House.
Click to expand...

That's an excellent point: Rs who would have stayed home because of Trump might vote for Romney. The Trumpeters will, of course, vote for Trump and, presumably, be more inclined to vote R down-ballot. Neither Trump nor Romney would win the POTUS, of course, but such a strategy could keep the Senate R and all but remove the risk of the dems taking the house. The question is, would Romney run knowing he can't win for such a strategy? I find it hard to believe he would willingly suffer the rigors of the campaign trail and the costs for such a cause. Of course, there's the practicalities about whether he could get on the ballot in enough states, etc, but it is an interesting scenario.
 
apdst said:
I say that because I believe the clintonites are scared shirtless of Trump's chances. I believe they have good reason to be worried; that and Clinton still isn't sure she isn't going to prison.
Click to expand...

To speak in support of your notion... Clinton thought she had Obama beat once upon a time. I'm sure the memory of that 'reversal' still stings. I don't know that I'd say 'scared shirtless' (that's a bit of hyperbole that is just a distraction)... but they certainly aren't taking anything for granted. And I doubt they like the way things are shaping up. They must feel increasingly uncertain. Bernie has changed from a 'novelty' candidate to a serious contender. Trump is showing far more strength than anyone predicted. Shaky times in the Hillary camp.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
That's an excellent point: Rs who would have stayed home because of Trump might vote for Romney. The Trumpeters will, of course, vote for Trump and, presumably, be more inclined to vote R down-ballot. Neither Trump nor Romney would win the POTUS, of course, but such a strategy could keep the Senate R and all but remove the risk of the dems taking the house. The question is, would Romney run knowing he can't win for such a strategy? I find it hard to believe he would willingly suffer the rigors of the campaign trail and the costs for such a cause. Of course, there's the practicalities about whether he could get on the ballot in enough states, etc, but it is an interesting scenario.
Click to expand...

Well none of us can completely know another man's heart. But, as I said elsewhere, I believe that Romney possesses some level of nobility. Some harkening back to the times of Noblesse Oblige. Or... his overweaning self-interest, combined with an acute talent for strategic thinking (he's a Very Good corporate raider) have combined to tell him that any short-term losses or humiliations will be more than repaid by a future made more likely by derailing Trump. Or maybe some of each, eh? :mrgreen:
 
David G said:
Well none of us can completely know another man's heart. But, as I said elsewhere, I believe that Romney possesses some level of nobility. Some harkening back to the times of Noblesse Oblige. Or... his overweaning self-interest, combined with an acute talent for strategic thinking (he's a Very Good corporate raider) have combined to tell him that any short-term losses or humiliations will be more than repaid by a future made more likely by derailing Trump. Or maybe some of each, eh? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

The only problem is that Rs were, by and large, unenthusiastic for Romney in '12. I'm not sure how much enthusiasm "R not Trump" could generate this time around. Enough to affect down-ballot? Hard to see that, but maybe.
 
Cyrylek said:
First of all, that is not the worst outcome - for someone who cares about the future of conservatism and the GOP. Trump means death. Hillary means 4 years of invigorating opposition.

But I would not be surprised if the electoral map will look totally different this year. Right now, Trump is in dead heat with Clinton in Pennsylvania and in Utah. Neither is supposed to be happening. If a Romney (or whoever's) third-party campaign plays its cards right, it could pick enough electoral votes to deny presidency to both Trump and Hillary. Then the House will pick the President, and the GOP may end up sitting pretty.
Click to expand...

That's an awful lot of IF's that would never happen. Its a fantasy scenario at best.
 
disneydude said:
That's an awful lot of IF's that would never happen. Its a fantasy scenario at best.
Click to expand...

Which one? You doubt that Trump could win, or that the third candidate could make a difference?
 
Citizen.Seven said:
The only problem is that Rs were, by and large, unenthusiastic for Romney in '12. I'm not sure how much enthusiasm "R not Trump" could generate this time around. Enough to affect down-ballot? Hard to see that, but maybe.
Click to expand...

Again... it doesn't matter. Even a minimal amount of enthusiasm will be enough to siphon off sufficient juice from Trump to lose him the vote. At the margins, it only takes a few percentage points. At least - that's what they appear to be thinking.
 
David G said:
Again... it doesn't matter. Even a minimal amount of enthusiasm will be enough to siphon off sufficient juice from Trump to lose him the vote. At the margins, it only takes a few percentage points. At least - that's what they appear to be thinking.
Click to expand...

Except Trump losing isn't really in contention, that's going to happen anyway with or without Romney running. The idea is to get Rs to the poll who would sit this one out, maybe a few Is as well who can't stand either Clinton or Trump and may be more inclined to vote R down ballot. It's about not returning to the nightmare of one party rule, not regaining the executive.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
Except Trump losing isn't really in contention, that's going to happen anyway with or without Romney running. The idea is to get Rs to the poll who would sit this one out, maybe a few Is as well who can't stand either Clinton or Trump and may be more inclined to vote R down ballot. It's about not returning to the nightmare of one party rule, not regaining the executive.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine you are substantially correct. I'd also imagine that they are less sanguine than you about the inevitability of a Trump loss.
 
David G said:
I'd imagine you are substantially correct. I'd also imagine that they are less sanguine than you about the inevitability of a Trump loss.
Click to expand...

That may be, but I'm sure they can read an electoral map as least as well as I can. Unless there is some sort of seismic shift, the dems win the POTUS. I can't say I'm happy about this, as it inevitably means more taxes and more gun control, but that's what it looks like. So, if one cares about stopping whatever crazy nonsense HRC has planned, that means keeping the Senate R. Else, we will lose federal recognition of gun ownership as an individual right, something that took almost a century to get back and it will remain that way for at least another quarter century. I'm just not sure if such a calculus will persuade enough disgruntled disenfranchised "establishment' republicans to get out to vote.
 
Cyrylek said:
First of all, that is not the worst outcome - for someone who cares about the future of conservatism and the GOP. Trump means death. Hillary means 4 years of invigorating opposition.

But I would not be surprised if the electoral map will look totally different this year. Right now, Trump is in dead heat with Clinton in Pennsylvania and in Utah. Neither is supposed to be happening. If a Romney (or whoever's) third-party campaign plays its cards right, it could pick enough electoral votes to deny presidency to both Trump and Hillary. Then the House will pick the President, and the GOP may end up sitting pretty.
Click to expand...

For those who care about the future of conservatism, all but the delusional know it being written. IF the establishment runs a third party, win or lose for the republican candidate, and there will be no future for conservatism. In fact, the more the establishment tries to engineer their own way here, the closer they come to bringing about the true death of the so-called conservative movement.

The day the house chooses our president is the day the people revolt. Not just with votes, not just at the ballot box, but guerrilla style. What happens when 90% of the actual taxpayers stop paying their taxes?
 
Cyrylek said:
Which one? You doubt that Trump could win, or that the third candidate could make a difference?
Click to expand...

I doubt that any third party candidate is going to cause someone from getting the 270 needed to win. Romney would only likely hurt Trump.
 
disneydude said:
I doubt that any third party candidate is going to cause someone from getting the 270 needed to win. Romney would only likely hurt Trump.
Click to expand...

Most probably (especially if it is Romney). But not 100% certain. While Trump at the helm of the GOP mean certain death for conservatism. Nothing to lose.
 
Cyrylek said:
Most probably (especially if it is Romney). But not 100% certain. While Trump at the helm of the GOP mean certain death for conservatism. Nothing to lose.
Click to expand...

Oh....I agree that its probably a good idea for the Republican party...to protect the congress/senate candidates from going down with the ship. But realistically, give me one state that Romney or another rd party candidate would win that would prevent Hillary from obtaining the 270 electoral votes that you need to win. It wouldn't be Florida or Ohio....A Romney or other 3rd party Republican would simply divide the GOP vote....it wouldn't eat into Hillary's numbers....and without both Florida and Ohio, there is no shot for a GOP candidate.
 
disneydude said:
Oh....I agree that its probably a good idea for the Republican party...to protect the congress/senate candidates from going down with the ship. But realistically, give me one state that Romney or another rd party candidate would win that would prevent Hillary from obtaining the 270 electoral votes that you need to win. It wouldn't be Florida or Ohio....A Romney or other 3rd party Republican would simply divide the GOP vote....it wouldn't eat into Hillary's numbers....and without both Florida and Ohio, there is no shot for a GOP candidate.
Click to expand...

True, but it might be Joe Biden taking that oath in the end. The Republicans are considering a coup on Trump, while the FBI mess might force Hillary to drop out.
 
Erod said:
True, but it might be Joe Biden taking that oath in the end. The Republicans are considering a coup on Trump, while the FBI mess might force Hillary to drop out.
Click to expand...

LOL.....keep playing that card....you're going to get about as far as you got with Benghazi. But....I guess that's all ya got...so you gotta play your hand.
 
disneydude said:
LOL.....keep playing that card....you're going to get about as far as you got with Benghazi. But....I guess that's all ya got...so you gotta play your hand.
Click to expand...

She just lost 20 states to a 74-year-old socialist loser from Vermont. E-mails are only half her problem.
 
Erod said:
She just lost 20 states to a 74-year-old socialist loser from Vermont. E-mails are only half her problem.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a pretty normal primary season between 2 candidates. yawn....... you gotta come up with something a hell of a lot better than that if you wanna compete.
 
disneydude said:
Sounds like a pretty normal primary season between 2 candidates. yawn....... you gotta come up with something a hell of a lot better than that if you wanna compete.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton is the absolute definition of an evil, corrupt, lying politician. She lost 2/3 of her West Virginia vote from 2008. She can't beat a corpse who was propped up for her, a la "A Weekend at Bernie's".

Meanwhile, the Republicans choose a reactionary imbecile like Trump. And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Hillary can't even beat him.

Hillary would struggle against a puddle of mud. She's a vile, criminal bitch, and the whole world knows it.
 
Erod said:
Hillary Clinton is the absolute definition of an evil, corrupt, lying politician. She lost 2/3 of her West Virginia vote from 2008. She can't beat a corpse who was propped up for her, a la "A Weekend at Bernie's".

Meanwhile, the Republicans choose a reactionary imbecile like Trump. And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Hillary can't even beat him.

Hillary would struggle against a puddle of mud. She's a vile, criminal bitch, and the whole world knows it.
Click to expand...

You are letting your emotions control your brain.
 
yankintx said:
I think Mitt has left a bit late for a third party run, I do not know the specifics, but believe the rings to jump thru to get on the ballot are lengthy.
Click to expand...

Yep, and if a conservative cannot get Texas, there's no chance at winning, and the deadline to get on the ballot in Texas passed yesterday as I recall.

More to the point, "met privately with William Kristol..." LMMFAO...:lamo :surrender
 
disneydude said:
Oh....I agree that its probably a good idea for the Republican party...to protect the congress/senate candidates from going down with the ship. But realistically, give me one state that Romney or another rd party candidate would win that would prevent Hillary from obtaining the 270 electoral votes that you need to win. It wouldn't be Florida or Ohio....A Romney or other 3rd party Republican would simply divide the GOP vote....it wouldn't eat into Hillary's numbers....and without both Florida and Ohio, there is no shot for a GOP candidate.
Click to expand...

Populist movements tend to swell uncontrollably. It is not inconceivable that the Democratic cross-over vote in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania will be so big, the Republicans switching from Trump to Candidate X will not be able to compensate it. On the other hand, you already have the never-Trump conservative vote turning Utah, for example, blue. (Romney would carry this one easily). This year, almost anything is possible.
 
JasperL said:
Yep, and if a conservative cannot get Texas, there's no chance at winning, and the deadline to get on the ballot in Texas passed yesterday as I recall.

More to the point, "met privately with William Kristol..." LMMFAO...:lamo :surrender
Click to expand...

A Republican Third party candidate would end up turning Texas blue. What they need to understand is that there is a core democratic vote that a third party Republican is never going to eat into. They would split the GOP vote and give the state to Hilary. Can you just imagine....Texas going to Hillary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom