• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney may have just picked up the nomination.

In fact, if Newt rises and Cain falls. The chance of a not-Romney winning the election will be much bigger. Different from Cain, Newt seem to have an organization in the early states, in fact his organization in South Carolina is the biggest.

Look at the poll numbers, Romney is dropping, he is also dropping on intrade. I'm not so sure if Romney is going to win, he seem to be too unpopular.
 
At his worst, Romney just shoots himself in the foot, where other contenders tend to aim for their own heads. This is what I like most about Mitt's chances: He's the least self destructive, appears to be scandal free, and the media's managed to do only modest damage to his character.
 
At his worst, Romney just shoots himself in the foot, where other contenders tend to aim for their own heads. This is what I like most about Mitt's chances: He's the least self destructive, appears to be scandal free, and the media's managed to do only modest damage to his character.
Have they even attempted to destroy his character? I have never seen Romney been asked difficult question. His trade war policy is in my opinion worse than Herman Cain's 999 plan. I haven't seen any media mentioning it.

What they do mention, is his flip flopping. But he can't destroy himself any more in that area. Similar with Newt, everyone knows his baggage, so he can't be destroyed by his past.
 
IMO it's down to Romney and Gingrich. They're the only non-ridiculous candidates left. I agree with Zyphlin that he has too much baggage. He's been in politics for like 600 years. He's put his foot in his mouth, bad, more times than anybody can remember. And, frankly, he just isn't that charismatic.

Huntsman is both too smart and too liberal to be able to win in the primary, although he'd probably do very well in the general.

So, I think it's Romney.
 
IMO it's down to Romney and Gingrich. They're the only non-ridiculous candidates left. I agree with Zyphlin that he has too much baggage. He's been in politics for like 600 years. He's put his foot in his mouth, bad, more times than anybody can remember. And, frankly, he just isn't that charismatic.

Huntsman is both too smart and too liberal to be able to win in the primary, although he'd probably do very well in the general.

So, I think it's Romney.
Doesn't Romney have a lot of baggage as well. I will say Romney bagagge, may be worse than Newt baggage for non-moderate Republicans.

The reason I think Newt has a chance, (if all his baggage is out there) is because Romney never gets more than 20-25% support. And with the decline of both Perry and Cain he has gained nothing. If the Cain and Perry voters are forced to find a new candidate, most polls say they prefer Newt. That is also why I have all my intrade money invested in Newt since 1 november.
 
Doesn't Romney have a lot of baggage as well. I will say Romney bagagge, may be worse than Newt baggage for non-moderate Republicans.

Yeah I guess that is true... Maybe it's harder for me to see the things they object to as "baggage"... Like "he tried to help people out sometimes!" doesn't jump off the page as horrible baggage to me the way it does to some.... ;)

The reason I think Newt has a chance, (if all his baggage is out there) is because Romney never gets more than 20-25% support. And with the decline of both Perry and Cain he has gained nothing. If the Cain and Perry voters are forced to find a new candidate, most polls say they prefer Newt. That is also why I have all my intrade money invested in Newt since 1 november.

Yeah. Maybe so... Frankly I can't believe that from the entire GOP they were not able to come up with one decent candidate... I was sure for the longest time that we just hadn't seen the real candidates yet and that somebody was going to swoop in last minute. Christie or somebody maybe... But nope. Just left to pick through the ones the GOP has already rejected at least once for the least offensive one to them....
 
Romney has always hit his ceiling in the mid-ish 20's. Much of the race thus far has been focused on the other 75 ish percent of the party, swinging around attempting to find a NotRomney to coalesce around. Barring an amazing surge by Gingrich, Cain may have been their last, best hope for a NotRomney candidate to secure enough support to consistently beat Romney's numbers in the key lead states.

Cain is in serious trouble. IF it can be positively demonstrated that the women arrayed against him (and most especially the one who gave the press release) have been coopted or organized to attack him, then this attack would rebound in his favor. IF, however, (as is seeming more likely), the issue remains somewhat muddled, eventually coming down to the he-said-she-said, then this places a heavy cap on Cain's rising support, and will reverse the flow in a steady drip.

SO. Where will the crowd go next. Perry and Bachman have both risen and fallen. Santorum remains Cain's antithesis - with a depth of policy that is perfectly designed to appeal to conservatives, but personally unappealing. Gingrich faces his own ceiling issues because of his history and the earlier comments about Ryan.

And. At This Point In Time. JUST before voters begin to stream away from the latest flavor of the month, Romney (not exactly known for his boldness) comes out with an entitlement reform plan that is the test for leadership in this race, and in line with the ideals of the Ryan Budget, winning the praise of of the editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal and National Review. This positions him to be enough of an acceptable candidate to pick up enough of the streaming Republican voters to put him ahead of the competition in a way that will be very difficult to beat.

The timing of this was slick. Holding this in reserve cost him on the front end, and probably contributed to the general distrust conservatives will always have for him, but I think it'll pay dividends for him electorally.

I (mostly) agree with this assessment. At this point I think it's overwhelmingly likely that Mitt Romney will be the nominee. It's hard for me to envision a path to the nomination for any of the other candidates, although the polls may surprise us with rapid movements in the weeks leading up to the vote, as voters actually start paying attention. Mitt Romney has run a good campaign, but he has also had extraordinarily good luck in the weakness of everyone else in the Republican field.

The only non-Romneys who look like serious candidates on paper are Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and arguably Newt Gingrich. And each of them have a lot of problems that make it unlikely for them to win the nomination. Rick Perry's performance in the debates has been catastrophic. Not just underwhelming; he has made a total fool of himself. He should have been the strongest non-Romney in the field on paper, but he has cemented a national reputation for himself as a buffoon. Jon Huntsman's problem is that he isn't well-known by the average Republican, and he isn't very exciting. I don't believe that his positions on the issues are all that harmful to him (as they aren't that different from most other candidates)...the problem is that no one cares about anything he says. Newt Gingrich is certainly one of the smarter Republican candidates, and I think former Speaker of the House is a perfectly respectable office from which to launch a serious presidential campaign...but his personal life and off-putting personality will probably be too much for voters to handle. And he's an undisciplined gaffe machine.

The rest of the field are mostly just vanity candidates anyway. Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann enjoyed their fifteen minutes of fame, but neither of them were ever serious contenders for the Republican nomination regardless of what the polls indicated. The voters aren't going to elect a random member of the House of Representatives to be president, let alone someone whose claim to fame is running a pizza chain. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul will never be nominated because Republican primary voters (however they feel about the candidates themselves) recognize that the American people will view them as extremists...which they are.

So by process of elimination, that leaves Romney. Not because he's a stellar candidate (although I give him credit for running a very solid campaign), but because the rest of the field is awful. I predict that Romney will cruise to an easy primary victory, and mount as formidable of a challenge against Obama as any potential Republican nominee could.
 
Last edited:
The problem with your scenario my friend is this country can not exist through another term with Hussein Obama.................
Fair and balanced folks never seem to run out of stupid things to say.
 
How are my morals selective?
Fair and balanced folks need to believe that they have some kind of monopoly on morality. They're always trying to overcompensate for their own lack of moral and ethical principles, hoping no one will notice all the empty rhetoric.
 
So by process of elimination, that leaves Romney. Not because he's a stellar candidate (although I give him credit for running a very solid campaign), but because the rest of the field is awful. I predict that Romney will cruise to an easy primary victory, and mount as formidable of a challenge against Obama as any potential Republican nominee could.

the upside of this many debates and having this many "notRomney's" to contend with, one after the other, is that Romney should be very practiced by the time he get's past the primary.
 
At his worst, Romney just shoots himself in the foot, where other contenders tend to aim for their own heads. This is what I like most about Mitt's chances: He's the least self destructive, appears to be scandal free, and the media's managed to do only modest damage to his character.

Of course they don't attack him... HE'S ONE OF THEM.... A GUTLESS, SPINELESS LIBERAL WHO DOESN'T STAND FOR ANYTHING!!!! I'd vote for Lucifer himself before I even considered voting for Romney. Then again I've seen the damage he's done to the State I live in first hand.


Yeah I guess that is true... Maybe it's harder for me to see the things they object to as "baggage"... Like "he tried to help people out sometimes!" doesn't jump off the page as horrible baggage to me the way it does to some.... ;)

Try it when it's YOUR pocket he's stealing from to help those people out, teamosil. That's the worst type of baggage so far as I'm concerned. Reach into MY pocket to help people who deserve nothing more than a plastic bag and a shallow grave and you've made an enemy for life.

Yeah. Maybe so... Frankly I can't believe that from the entire GOP they were not able to come up with one decent candidate... I was sure for the longest time that we just hadn't seen the real candidates yet and that somebody was going to swoop in last minute. Christie or somebody maybe... But nope. Just left to pick through the ones the GOP has already rejected at least once for the least offensive one to them....

The GOP hasn't been able to come up with a decent candidate in my LIFETIME (I'm 37). Hell, they haven't come up with a decent canidate since prior to the Civil War (no LINCOLN does NOT count).
 
HAH, not even a Coolidge man, eh? or a Goldwater.
 
the upside of this many debates and having this many "notRomney's" to contend with, one after the other, is that Romney should be very practiced by the time he get's past the primary.

Now thats true...CP it seems you have finally resigned yourself to what I told you was going to happen months ago...
 
:shrug: once Perry collapsed on himself it seems to have been over. I still have no intentions of voting for the man.
 
HAH, not even a Coolidge man, eh? or a Goldwater.

Nope. Not even a Ron Paulian. So far as I'm concerned the last real CONSERVATIVE to sit in Washington DC was a gentleman by the name of Andrew Jackson, and I believe he was a Democrat if my memory serves me right.
 
the guy who introduced cronyism to the federal government? who overrode the state governments and created an early model imperial presidency?
 
Nope. Not even a Ron Paulian. So far as I'm concerned the last real CONSERVATIVE to sit in Washington DC was a gentleman by the name of Andrew Jackson, and I believe he was a Democrat if my memory serves me right.

He actually increased the power of the presidency. He was also the only president to not listen to the SCOTUS when he forced the relocation of the Cherokee.
 
He actually increased the power of the presidency. He was also the only president to not listen to the SCOTUS when he forced the relocation of the Cherokee.

I have no problem with the Presidency having EXTREME amounts of power in certain cases.

As for the Cherokee.... When's the last time a conquered people got to decide where they lived and how they lived?

Jackson understood the ideal of American Exceptionalism and had a vision for this nation. He was not going to let anyone or anything stand in the way of that ideal.
 
Newt has way too much baggage to be a serious contender.

The only real alternative is Huntsman.
LMAO........ Huntswoman doesn't have a prayer given his policies and he is a buddy of BO. If you think Newt has too much baggage, Romney's baggage could weigh down a 747 from taking off. If Cain does not withstand the current attacks on his character, conservatives will start giving Newt a second look.
 
I agree. I shake my head when I hear someone like Limbaugh lambasting Republicans for compromising with Democrats, then in the next sentence saying how wonderful Reagan was. Reagan was wonderful and got a lot done, but he got the economy off dead bottom and made us all proud to be Americans again by compromising with the Democrats.

He didn't have a choice in the matter. Unlike BO, he actually tried to figure out ways to achieve his goals while giving the democrats something they wanted, runaway spending. We also had a lot of democrats that were moderates and strong on defense, people like Sam Nunn. RR worked with folks like that to get his national defense and tax policies in place. We have just suffered through 4 years of hell with Jimmy Carter, everyone knew the economy had to be fixed and the democrats back then actually believed in capitalism so they agreed with RR tax proposals.
 
Electability is not the proper judge of a candidate and never has been. Ideology is. I tend to agree that Romney will be the nominee, and I hope he gets run over like a penny on the railroad track by Obama. Then maybe we can put away this "moderate Republican" crap and over the next four years find a candidate who actually IS Conservative rather than just paying lip service to it to run against the next guy (assuming the US lasts that long).

If what you described happens, nothing will matter four years from now. The country will be completely bankrupt and our world standing will be somewhere close to Somalia's.
 
At his worst, Romney just shoots himself in the foot, where other contenders tend to aim for their own heads. This is what I like most about Mitt's chances: He's the least self destructive, appears to be scandal free, and the media's managed to do only modest damage to his character.

I agree he is the least of the LSM concern.. AT THE MOMENT. However, once the left media secure his nomination by simple attrition, he will be visciously attacked from all sides. Once the candidate is selected for the Republican's, all bets are off. No more wink wink nudge nudge from the seemingly dosile left leaning media we're seeing right now..

That said.. Out of all the frigging people in the United States, are we really having to hang our hats on this bunch of idiots? Is there no candidate out there that can articulate themselves well enough to enlighten the masses? Cain, Romney, Perry, Bachman, Newt, Santorum, Paul, Hunstman? Really?? I mean.. Really?


Tim-
 
I have no problem with the Presidency having EXTREME amounts of power in certain cases.

As for the Cherokee.... When's the last time a conquered people got to decide where they lived and how they lived?

Jackson understood the ideal of American Exceptionalism and had a vision for this nation. He was not going to let anyone or anything stand in the way of that ideal.

Let alone the Law.
 
Of course they don't attack him... HE'S ONE OF THEM.... A GUTLESS, SPINELESS LIBERAL WHO DOESN'T STAND FOR ANYTHING!!!! I'd vote for Lucifer himself before I even considered voting for Romney. Then again I've seen the damage he's done to the State I live in first hand.




Try it when it's YOUR pocket he's stealing from to help those people out, teamosil. That's the worst type of baggage so far as I'm concerned. Reach into MY pocket to help people who deserve nothing more than a plastic bag and a shallow grave and you've made an enemy for life.



The GOP hasn't been able to come up with a decent candidate in my LIFETIME (I'm 37). Hell, they haven't come up with a decent canidate since prior to the Civil War (no LINCOLN does NOT count).

Jeez, arguing in favor of genocide is not going to win you any friends in America. Try Iran. They would more appreciative of your point of view.
 
the upside of this many debates and having this many "notRomney's" to contend with, one after the other, is that Romney should be very practiced by the time he get's past the primary.

I agree with this. Mitt Romney is a very skilled debater, certainly better than Obama. In 2008, Obama did OK in his debates, but he was hardly inspiring. Romney, on the other hand, is truly outstanding at debates.
 
Back
Top Bottom