Romney/Ryan Lose 2012 Election Thread

[JimboDaMan]

just above atheist most likely, or just below

maybe it depends on if they are activists....let me find the book:evilg:

Atheist? What is this "atheist"?

Ohhh, I get it. You must be new. You mean "godless".

[Burgold]

I have to disagree on the second part. The etch a sketch comment hurt, but that was by an advisor and easily dismissed as "not how Mr. Romney feels". The 47% video was devastating because it came straight from the horses mouth. The person who recorded that video gets my vote for Time Magazines Person of the Year. And I'm dead serious about it.

I think it was because even though Romney didn't say it, I think it stuck to Romney like flip flop did to Kerry and it became baggage that he couldn't shake. It became a primary narrative in how he morphed at debates, on the stump, and before different audiences. It made him incredibly untrustworthy.

[88Comrade2000]

The election has over for over weeks. So, he had lunch with Obama. Just a courtesy thing by Obama. Nothing will come of it and Romney will be forgotten to the dustbin of history.

Time to move on and forget about this guy.

[twa]

I'm sure he will get by somehow

[China]

Here's what Mitt is up to these days:

Mitt Romney celebrates 66th birthday with fluffernutter cupcakes

Apparently celebrating with all his friends a la Kirk Cameron.

[88Comrade2000]

After his stupid speech at CPAC, he will fade away.

2012 is past tense. 2016 is full steam ahead, people and the candidates are already into 2016 mode.

President Rand Paul, President Chris Christie, President Andrew Cuomo, President Martin O Malley, President Jeb Bush, President Paul Ryan, President Rick Santorum, PResident Michelle Obama, President Joe Biden, President Hillary Clinton, etc...

That's where the focus is now.

[Elessar78]

Aren't the GOP going to try even harder and send up Bobby Jindal and/or Marco Rubio—hey we're NOT the party of rich white guys. REALLY.

[mjah]

We all know how the GOP primaries work. Being the only serious candidate and having the deepest war chest makes you a slam dunk; otherwise it's a wide-open field of crazies. They'd be ultra-smart to keep the Bush name as far away from that race as humanly possible. Jeb would be a serious candidate but his last name might as well be Nixon at this point. Rand is his party's Kucinich; zero shot once people actually start looking at him seriously. Christie could get the nod if Middle America and Fat America don't see him as just a Jersey loudmouth pretender; hard to gauge how likely that is. He already has lots of party enemies and lots of very reasonable decisions to "atone for" within the GOP. Ryan is a dork, Jindal is a dork, Rubio is a child playing a man's game, but hey -- you have to nominate someone. Time to trot out Huckabee and his stated insistence on rewriting the Constitution to better fit the Bible.

As for the Democratic side, there are some slim pickins there too. Biden will run; Hillary may; O'Malley and Cuomo will try but nobody will care. Then you have a wide field of nobodies trying to be the next successor to the Clinton out-of-nowhere primary model that Obama built and improved upon. That might be enough to win. As always... the economy in 2016 vs. 2012 will be the biggest single factor and it's far too early to judge that.

I'd like to see Newt jump into the GOP race again. By 2016 he'll have completed his physical transformation into a geriatric lesbian with a lump of mashed potatoes for a haircut. How could you NOT want to watch him drop entertaining grenades into the primary during another doomed quest for power?

[greenspandan]

christie and rubio are the only two legitimate contenders on the GOP side at the moment, but the eventual nominee is probably someone who's not currently in the conversation. yes, it always surprises people how quickly presidential candidates emerge, especially from the non-incumbant party: virtually NOBODY thought Obama had a shot at the 2008 nomination back in 2004, for example. even the biggest Obama boosters (the ones who were blown away by his '04 DNC speech) were thinking 2012 or 2016 at the earliest.

we all assumed Romney was the front runner for the GOP nomination from more or less 2008 on, and he ended up getting it, but that's actually a bit unusual. it's to the GOP's shame that he was the only even remotely credible contender they could come up with in 4 years. normally, the guy that catches on is someone that's a little bit of an up-and-comer and enough of an unknown factor that people can fantasize a bit -- project what they want onto what he has shown, and not have there be too much of a disconnect. Romney had all kinds of problems in that department. too much of a record. too many contradictions.

which brings up an interesting point: i think history (or at least recent history) shows that serious political experience is generally a detrement to Presidential aspirations, for better or worse. compare the relative political experience levels of obama, gw bush, clinton, and reagan to their opponents and i think it's a bit lopsided in favor of the losers of those elections!

[88Comrade2000]

Aren't the GOP going to try even harder and send up Bobby Jindal and/or Marco Rubio—hey we're NOT the party of rich white guys. REALLY.

I think it's a lock that there will be hispanic on both parties tickets. Dems probably veep and same thing for the Repubs unless Marco Rubio gets the nomination. Personally, I think Marco should run for governor first and get executive experience. We already did the Senator with Obama.

[greenspandan]

We already did the Senator with Obama.

and in most peoples' opinion, that worked well enough for him to trounce his opponent.

like i said -- the more experience a guy has, the harder it is for him to get elected POTUS.

[88Comrade2000]

christie and rubio are the only two legitimate contenders on the GOP side at the moment, but the eventual nominee is probably someone who's not currently in the conversation. yes, it always surprises people how quickly presidential candidates emerge, especially from the non-incumbant party: virtually NOBODY thought Obama had a shot at the 2008 nomination back in 2004, for example. even the biggest Obama boosters (the ones who were blown away by his '04 DNC speech) were thinking 2012 or 2016 at the earliest.

we all assumed Romney was the front runner for the GOP nomination from more or less 2008 on, and he ended up getting it, but that's actually a bit unusual. it's to the GOP's shame that he was the only even remotely credible contender they could come up with in 4 years. normally, the guy that catches on is someone that's a little bit of an up-and-comer and enough of an unknown factor that people can fantasize a bit -- project what they want onto what he has shown, and not have there be too much of a disconnect. Romney had all kinds of problems in that department. too much of a record. too many contradictions.

which brings up an interesting point: i think history (or at least recent history) shows that serious political experience is generally a detrement to Presidential aspirations, for better or worse. compare the relative political experience levels of obama, gw bush, clinton, and reagan to their opponents and i think it's a bit lopsided in favor of the losers of those elections!

Reagan, Bush Jr, Clinton had executive experience since they were governors. Papa Bush was probably the most experience person to hold the office. Obama had little.

The modern GOP has a history of giving the nomination to the next guy.

80- Reagan- he was the runner up in 76

88- Bush- he was the runner up in 80

96- Dole- he was the runner up in 88

08- Mccain- he was the runner up in 00

12- Romney- he was the runner up in 08

Only time they didn't go with the next runner up was Bush Jr in 00.

Odds are the Republicans will nominate someone sensible with a chance like Christie or Rubio, though I think Marco is too green to be president. Or the alternative; the right wingers nominate someone unelectable at the national level. This generation's Barry Goldwater.

Either way; Hillary is the prohibitive favorite.

---------- Post added March-14th-2013 at 12:49 AM ----------

and in most peoples' opinion, that worked well enough for him to trounce his opponent.

like i said -- the more experience a guy has, the harder it is for him to get elected POTUS.

Obama also had no competition. In 2008, given the Bush fatigue and then the crash; no Republican was going to win. Any candidate the Dems would've had would've won in 2008. In 2012, Obama was beatable but he had no electable opposition.

[Burgold]

Seems to me that the Republicans have four contenders at the moment...

Jeb Bush, who they really want to like. Marco Rubio, who they like because he is charismatic and they believe that will get the Latino vote, Ryan, who's next in line, or Rand Paul who's the champion of Austerity.

I see Paul being the VOP and Rubio being the candidate right now. The last two go arounds, the Republicans chose as their candidate someone they thought looked moderate and was electable, but that they didn't like. Their VP candidate was their true Presidential candidate. They believed in Palin and Ryan more than they believed in McCain and Romney.

Obvious problem with this strategy is that if you don't like your face in the mirror why should you expect others too?

[Elessar78]

Well the GOP just snubbed Christie at CPAC (yet D. Trump is there). Wouldn't be surprised if he ran as an independent.

Scott Walker is already publicly taking down Jeb Bush by highlighting that if you didn't know his last name, he'd be a great candidate. But that he IS a Bush, and Bush was no where near the last RNC.

So we're 3 years away and they're all taking each other down. You'll know Christie is running for POTUS if you start seeing him slim down. Sounds glib, but I don't think I'm wrong.

I want them to run Rubio. Do people think Hispanics will forget decades of anti-them policy because the GOP throws someone with brown skin in front of them? "Oh, they're different now."

[Burgold]

I want them to run Rubio. Do people think Hispanics will forget decades of anti-them policy because the GOP throws someone with brown skin in front of them? "Oh, they're different now."

You got to remember that many Republicans seem to believe that the only reason any African American voted for Obama at all was the color of his skin. That's one of the major reasons they are pushing Rubio at this point.

[Elessar78]

You got to remember that many Republicans seem to believe that the only reason any African American voted for Obama at all was the color of his skin. That's one of the major reasons they are pushing Rubio at this point.

So they've mis-identified the problem? Fantastic!

[Larry]

You got to remember that many Republicans seem to believe that the only reason any African American voted for Obama at all was the color of his skin. That's one of the major reasons they are pushing Rubio at this point.

I also believe that they figured that Sarah Palin would pull disgruntled Hillary supporters because of her gender.

But then, the fact that the GOP isn't dead and buried is a testimony to the fact that it's possible to get people to vote against their best interests. A lot of people.

[deejaydana]

You got to remember that many Republicans seem to believe that the only reason any African American voted for Obama at all was the color of his skin. That's one of the major reasons they are pushing Rubio at this point.

This may be in part true, in fact with older R voters, it likely is the case but you'll also never find a more monolithic voting block than the African American voters. Many will readily admit to voting because of skin color.

[greenspandan]

Reagan, Bush Jr, Clinton had executive experience since they were governors. Papa Bush was probably the most experience person to hold the office. Obama had little.

i didn't say they had NO experience. i said they all had less experience than their opponents.

Obama also had no competition. In 2008, given the Bush fatigue and then the crash; no Republican was going to win. Any candidate the Dems would've had would've won in 2008. In 2012, Obama was beatable but he had no electable opposition.

i agree with all this, although i do think Obama deserves credit for running two exceptional campaigns.

[twa]

But then, the fact that the GOP isn't dead and buried is a testimony to the fact that it's possible to get people to vote against their best interests. A lot of people.

That used to be a noble trait, before we became self absorbed.

But it is always nice to see someone else determine what our self interest is.......Baaaaa

tick tock.........

http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2013/03/short-story-why-governments-go-broke.html

[mjah]

[...] i do think Obama deserves credit for running two exceptional campaigns.

It has been fascinating to watch Obama get underestimated over and over again for years now, and to watch those underestimating him learn nothing each time they turn out to be wrong.

I just tried to make a list of each time it has happened. It was going to take too long. I gave up. His reelection campaign is just one of the latest examples.

At this point, underestimating Obama makes a person look Dick Morris / Karl Rove bad. It's just a flat out failure to learn from history.

[...Wondering who will inevitably mistake this for a claim that the guy is somehow unassailable...]

[88Comrade2000]

i didn't say they had NO experience. i said they all had less experience than their opponents.

i agree with all this, although i do think Obama deserves credit for running two exceptional campaigns.

Not Deny Obama ran a great campaign, but 2008 was going to be Democratic no matter who was the nominee. Obama could've been beaten last year but he had no electable opposition. He gets credit for his GOTV operation which never ceased after he became president in 2009. Still he could've been beaten. Just like Bush could've been beaten in 2004 and 2000. Papa Bush in 1988.

---------- Post added March-14th-2013 at 01:48 PM ----------

This may be in part true, in fact with older R voters, it likely is the case but you'll also never find a more monolithic voting block than the African American voters. Many will readily admit to voting because of skin color.

I think Rubio will find the 2016 Republican Primaries many voters will reject him. They plenty of Republican primary voters who will NEVER vote for Hispanic, much less one who is a Republican. Also, remember Rubio is pushing a immigration plan that has amnesty- a big no no to Republicans.

Honestly, unless the economy is far worse than it was in 2012; I don't see how any Republican will win. Obama has given the Democrats a winning coalition and I don't see that coalition falling for whatever the Republicans attempt to con the nation with in 2016. Their nominee maybe acceptable but the party at it's core no longer appeals to the voters that has given Obama 2 wins.

[@DCGoldPants]

I think Christie could be an independent by next year in the GOP doesn't right the ship quickly.

[Elessar78]

I think Christie could be an independent by next year in the GOP doesn't right the ship quickly.

As I mentioned earlier, what's a CPAC snub worth? Christie's primary opponents will bring up his Sandy coziness to Obama and that will damage his brand even when he becomes the candidate.

I'd love for Christie to go independent as that will split the conservative vote once again.

[@DCGoldPants]

Its not the snub. Its that he's evolved into a leader that being part of the GOP doesn't embrace. So, its not like they could throw a Tea Party candidate up in Jersey and beat him. He handled Sandy well. So did Obama. That's just how it is.