• 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.

Why do people say Mittens Romney is electable?

conservativeguy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
405
Location
ATL
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Romney has won only one election is his political career. He lost 2 and avoided defeat by not running in another. He ran for the senate in Massachuesetts and lost. He ran for governor and won. He didn't run for a second term as governor since he would lose. He ran for the republican nomination for president and lost. It seems to me every other republican candidate has won considerably more races than Mittens......why is this turkey considered to be the most electable in the crowd? He has alienated the conservative base and he is an Epic flip flopper. I think the democrats know he is about as personable as BO, which means the more people see him the less they like him.......which is why they are trying to push Romney as the most electable when that could not be any further from the truth. Thoughts?
 
I used to think Romney was electable, but now I think all the real talent in the GOP has been ignored - Huntsman and Johnson are worthy GOP candidates. Paul is a worthy candidate, but he is not a GOP, he is a Libertarian. The rest of the GOP field are just placeholders IMO. YMMV
 
Mitt is only electable in the relative sense... compared to the rest of the field this time around.
 
I think Johnson is just as libertarian as Paul.
 
Romney has won only one election is his political career. He lost 2 and avoided defeat by not running in another. He ran for the senate in Massachuesetts and lost. He ran for governor and won. He didn't run for a second term as governor since he would lose. He ran for the republican nomination for president and lost. It seems to me every other republican candidate has won considerably more races than Mittens......why is this turkey considered to be the most electable in the crowd? He has alienated the conservative base and he is an Epic flip flopper. I think the democrats know he is about as personable as BO, which means the more people see him the less they like him.......which is why they are trying to push Romney as the most electable when that could not be any further from the truth. Thoughts?


CORRECTION: He WAS electable.

But since he's gone far-right and flip-flopped over to backwards econ and anti-science...

4 MORE YEARS!!
 
I've never believed that Romney was electable, He will say anything to anyone when he thinks that is what they want to hear.

I believe that Obama cannot win in 12, but the Republicans can figure out a way to lose. From what I am seeing, the present crop of candidates is proving me right.
 
I've never believed that Romney was electable, He will say anything to anyone when he thinks that is what they want to hear.

I believe that Obama cannot win in 12, but the Republicans can figure out a way to lose. From what I am seeing, the present crop of candidates is proving me right.

The ability to be a Rorschach is what makes him electable to the general public (not necessarily GOP primary voters).
 
I think the obvious answer is that he generally polls better against Obama than the rest of the keystone candidates.
 
I used to think Romney was electable, but now I think all the real talent in the GOP has been ignored - Huntsman and Johnson are worthy GOP candidates. Paul is a worthy candidate, but he is not a GOP, he is a Libertarian. The rest of the GOP field are just placeholders IMO. YMMV

Ron Paul is not a Libertarian.. he's a Republican.

he is ,however, libertarian.
 
The ability to be a Rorschach is what makes him electable to the general public (not necessarily GOP primary voters).

And therein lies the problem. To become president in the US you have to win two elections, and the two are not necessarily mutually compatible.
 
And therein lies the problem. To become president in the US you have to win two elections, and the two are not necessarily mutually compatible.

Agreed, but at this point it's hard for me to see anyone beating Romney in the primaries either. Some of the other candidates either plain don't know what they are talking about during these debates, or they don't have the money or organizational capacity to win, or both.
 
I used to think Romney was electable, but now I think all the real talent in the GOP has been ignored - Huntsman and Johnson are worthy GOP candidates. Paul is a worthy candidate, but he is not a GOP, he is a Libertarian. The rest of the GOP field are just placeholders IMO. YMMV

Romney is still electable. Huntsman deserves the nominations, but he's too moderate for the Tea Party's taste and has too low backing and financial support. I don't know about Johnson, didn't hear about him
 
Mitt is the only front-runner who can win any sizeable amount of Democrat & Independent votes.
 
Romney has won only one election is his political career. He lost 2 and avoided defeat by not running in another. He ran for the senate in Massachuesetts and lost. He ran for governor and won. He didn't run for a second term as governor since he would lose. He ran for the republican nomination for president and lost. It seems to me every other republican candidate has won considerably more races than Mittens......why is this turkey considered to be the most electable in the crowd? He has alienated the conservative base and he is an Epic flip flopper. I think the democrats know he is about as personable as BO, which means the more people see him the less they like him.......which is why they are trying to push Romney as the most electable when that could not be any further from the truth. Thoughts?

It's not so much that Romney is an amazing candidate; I think that win or lose, he'll perform respectably in the election...but not much more than that. He simply has the benefit of being one of the few electable candidates in an otherwise weak Republican field. With the exception of Jon Huntsman, the other candidates have proven themselves to be either too amateurish and/or too extreme to win the presidency. Someone like Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry looks pretty good on paper, but they are far too undisciplined to ever run a serious presidential campaign. All of the other candidates are vanity candidates, and the fact that any of them ever rose in the polls in the first place is a testament to how weak the current field is.

Compare that with 2008, when the Republicans had at least three candidates who could perform respectably well in the general election (Romney, McCain, Huckabee) and a couple others who at least looked good on paper (Thompson, Giuliani). In such a field, Romney didn't stand out as anything special. The political landscape in 2012 will probably not be as tilted against the Republicans as it was in 2008, so a respectable Republican candidate may very well be able to win.
 
Last edited:
It's not so much that Romney is an amazing candidate; I think that win or lose, he'll perform respectably in the election...but not much more than that. He simply has the benefit of being one of the few electable candidates in an otherwise weak Republican field. With the exception of Jon Huntsman, the other candidates have proven themselves to be either too amateurish and/or too extreme to win the presidency. Someone like Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry looks pretty good on paper, but they are far too undisciplined to ever run a serious presidential campaign. All of the other candidates are vanity candidates, and the fact that any of them ever rose in the polls in the first place is a testament to how weak the current field is.

Compare that with 2008, when the Republicans had at least three candidates who could perform respectably well in the general election (Romney, McCain, Huckabee) and a couple others who at least looked good on paper (Thompson, Giuliani). In such a field, Romney didn't stand out as anything special. The political landscape in 2012 will probably not be as tilted against the Republicans as it was in 2008, so a respectable Republican candidate may very well be able to win.

My biggest issue with Romney is his abandonment of his base while basically running a moderate/centrist campaign. He must be calculating a lot of conservatives will hold their noses and vote for him. What I think he is missing the impact that strategy willl have on republican/conservative turnout. If he doesn't convince a relatively small percentage of repubs/conservatives to vote, the margin of victory between him and BO may be so tight he will lose without the turnout. He may not win if he has a record turnout.

He has not proven to be an effective strategist given his track record of losing most of the elections he has entered....he may be blowing this one as well.
 
Romney is like the Kerry of the Republican Party. No one really likes him, but he is the "safe" choice and he will probably lose because he instills no passion into the race.

Kerry's whole campaign was to not stand for or do anything to piss anyone off and run as "not Bush." He was a total milquetoast. I haven't paid a ton of attention to Romney's campaign, but is he similar in that regard?
 
Romney is like the Kerry of the Republican Party. No one really likes him, but he is the "safe" choice and he will probably lose because he instills no passion into the race.

Kerry's whole campaign was to not stand for or do anything to piss anyone off and run as "not Bush." He was a total milquetoast. I haven't paid a ton of attention to Romney's campaign, but is he similar in that regard?

Very much so. He's even worse, IMO. Kerry was terrible at communicating his positions in the short sound bites that people like to hear, but if you could stand to listen to him he usually had something to say. In contrast, Romney just refuses to state a position one way other the other. He is constantly hedging. I understand why. He's already flip-flopped on almost every major issue. He doesn't want to get nailed again when he wins the nomination and runs to the middle.
 
"Thoughts?"

Er. no. No one wants Romney. He will get the GOP nomination though. That illustrates the suckage that is the GOP. Why think about him. He will win the GOP nomination by default (spending the most money) and by being the least insane out of a gaggle of truly mentally unwell GOP candidates. Romney is a chameleon. He is stands for...whatever it takes. LOL! He will lose to the devil we know.
 
Last edited:
Both positions can be in line with libertarian principles depending on other factors of the persons views

Can you expand on how the government telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body can be in line with libertarian principles?
 
Can you expand on how the government telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body can be in line with libertarian principles?

Sure .. by telling the woman what she can and cannot do with the person-to-be's body.
 
Sure .. by telling the woman what she can and cannot do with the person-to-be's body.

Does that include birth control? Would it be libertarian to tell a woman she can't use contraceptives? Or, can a libertarian force a woman to have unprotected sex? Is it libertarian to dictate what a pregnant woman can eat, or when and how much she exercises?
 
Back
Top Bottom