• 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.

Is Romney electable?

johnny_rebson said:
McCain lost because he is not a true conservative.

The same thing will happen to Romney.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think he lost because he wasn't a credible Notbush. We were looking for a Notbush, which is why he ran as a "Maverick", but not enough voters believed him.

IMO Romney is electable if he can get past the extremists in the Republican party and get the nomination. If Santorum or Gingrich get it, then Obama is a shoo in despite the economy and the deficit. If Romney gets it, he can play on his experience saving economically failing institutions. He's also a likable guy, which helps.

The RWENJ may not like Romney because he isn't "conservative" enough, but the mainstream voters will see him as a viable alternative to Obama and a possible leader who may turn the government around financially.
 
The months of increasing desperation of the Republican candidates to win the evangelical primary of Iowa (which is what the Iowa caucus really is), combined with the contest of who more wants to imprison women who have abortions,
which one most vocally hates and condemns gays,
which one more will replace the Bill of Rights with the Old Testament of the Bible,
and now which ones most promote unwanted pregnancies and oppose contraceptives
has made it so no Republican for President can win in November. I do not believe a majority of Americans are ready to vote to establish a theocratic federal government.
 
No he is not! Republicans are fools if they make the same mistake they made in 2008 with McCain. Republicans have lost there way and became the party of spending just like the Democrats. Obama will destroy any candidate BUT Ron Paul. Democrats will vote for Obama and republicans will vote for anyone but Obama. SO the question is ... who will get the independent vote? My friends... this is RON PAUL!
 
Something is wrong with Romney's campaign. I don't think it's just the base either... He barely beat Ron Paul in Maine. He was doing better at the beginning of the primaries and now he is doing worse. I think he had potential to bring in moderates, but I think his flip flopping makes me untrustworthy and unwilling to commit to a stance. Santorum looks like he is getting a bounce now... I just think Romney is a bad candidate.
 
SheWolf said:
Something is wrong with Romney's campaign. I don't think it's just the base either... He barely beat Ron Paul in Maine. He was doing better at the beginning of the primaries and now he is doing worse. I think he had potential to bring in moderates, but I think his flip flopping makes me untrustworthy and unwilling to commit to a stance. Santorum looks like he is getting a bounce now... I just think Romney is a bad candidate.
Click to expand...

Romney has more appeal for the centrists and independents than he does for the right wing. He'll do well in the general election if he can get there. No way are the mainstream voters going to go for Santorum or even Paul.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Romney has more appeal for the centrists and independents than he does for the right wing. He'll do well in the general election if he can get there. No way are the mainstream voters going to go for Santorum or even Paul.
Click to expand...

Mainstream voters are not going to go for any of the GOP candidates, that is the dilemma they face this election.
 
Catawba said:
Mainstream voters are not going to go for any of the GOP candidates, that is the dilemma they face this election.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't take any bets about that just now. Wait and see what unemployment looks like in November. Voters may be looking for a Notobama to vote for, just like they were looking for a Notbush last time around.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I wouldn't take any bets about that just now. Wait and see what unemployment looks like in November. Voters may be looking for a Notobama to vote for, just like they were looking for a Notbush last time around.
Click to expand...

What jobs plan is Romney offering???
 
Romney is the most electable of the current Republican field. And even then his chances would be less than 55 -45 against President Obama in November.
 
johnny_rebson said:
McCain lost because he is not a true conservative.

The same thing will happen to Romney.
Click to expand...

Moronic.

If the public had a problem with McCain's perceived lack of conservatism....that doesn't mean they're going for the guy (Obama) who is LESS conservative even than McCain! It's an idiotic fallacy that some on the fringe of the Republican party have embraced to convince the rest of the party to go along with the most conservative (read: least electable) candidates in the field.

If America really wanted a 'true conservative' rather than Romney, why does Romney poll better against Obama than Newt does? Than Bachmann did? Perry? Cain?
 
Romney/Jeb Bush 2012!
 
johnny_rebson said:
Romney can get votes from the liberals on the east coast.

Can Romney win in states in the heartland of America? Tonight America answered that question with a loud NO.
Click to expand...

Nobody who is liberal is going to vote for Mitt Romney.
 
Wiggen said:
Nobody who is liberal is going to vote for Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...
no, probably not. Then again, if ANY liberal was to be asked if Obama had to lose to a GOP candidate, everyone of them would choose Romney....
 
Catawba said:
What jobs plan is Romney offering???
Click to expand...

Who knows? The fact of the matter is that the president doesn't affect unemployment much anyway. If people are unhappy and unemployed, however, they're likely to blame the pres and vote out the incumbent.

Logic has little to do with presidential politics.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Who knows? The fact of the matter is that the president doesn't affect unemployment much anyway. If people are unhappy and unemployed, however, they're likely to blame the pres and vote out the incumbent.

Logic has little to do with presidential politics.
Click to expand...
The POTUS alone cannot be held accountable for a good or bad job market, but they can certainly have a positive or negative impact on it.
 
Romney is unelectable, and so is the rest of the Republican field.

Romney is going to be the nominee, and that's been known well before the primaries, which are just dog and pony shows for generating media buzz; the Republicans are a top down operation, and what the hicks in Cross-Over Country want or don't want is of no importance to the RNC, or the DNC, for that matter. Money talks, and Romney has it, and has had it for a while.

The DNC assigned David Axelrod to Romney a long time ago, in late 2010. Romney has all sorts of skeletons that make it easy to reduce him to toast, as far as the public is concerned. see This Book for starters, also some links on the page, for why he's toast in the general election. Whether that translates into down-ballot votes for state ballots, House and Senate campaigns in favor of Dems is debatable, but Obama is far more popular than the 'Tea Party' fraudsters currently warming seats for Grover Norquist, by a large margin, so I don't look for any break in the gridlock, regardless of the economy. It's pretty hard at the moment to generate a new bubble now, real estate scams having already been bubbled and busted three times now.
 
Last edited:
Oberon said:
Romney is unelectable, and so is the rest of the Republican field.

Romney is going to be the nominee, and that's been known well before the primaries, which are just dog and pony shows for generating media buzz; the Republicans are a top down operation, and what the hicks in Cross-Over Country want or don't want is of no importance to the RNC, or the DNC, for that matter. Money talks, and Romney has it, and has had it for a while.

The DNC assigned David Axelrod to Romney a long time ago, in late 2010. Romney has all sorts of skeletons that make it easy to reduce him to toast, as far as the public is concerned. see This Book for starters, also some links on the page, for why he's toast in the general election. Whether that translates into down-ballot votes for state ballots, House and Senate campaigns in favor of Dems is debatable, but Obama is far more popular than the 'Tea Party' fraudsters currently warming seats for Grover Norquist, by a large margin, so I don't look for any break in the gridlock, regardless of the economy. It's pretty hard at the moment to generate a new bubble now, real estate scams having already been bubbled and busted three times now.
Click to expand...

I agree, but sssh please, you are going to ruin the surprise for the majority of the GOP.
 
lol ... ain't no doubt.
 
00timh said:
no, probably not. Then again, if ANY liberal was to be asked if Obama had to lose to a GOP candidate, everyone of them would choose Romney....
Click to expand...
Sure they would, but when do you let Democrats pick your candidate. In fact it is not just Democrats, the GOP are letting rich Democrats pick for them. This is people who are out of touch of the electorate of both parties.

The electorate will not vote for Romney. Romney will not get the independent vote, because he is a 1%-er, and his economic plan is in many ways worse than Santorum. Sure, Santorum are too social conservative, but if he doesn't talk about it, it wont matter very much. Independents in this country are not that different from Republicans or the Tea Party. They will not pick a candidate who is hated by the GOP. They will not pick a candidate who is so desperate for the nomination, that he changes all of his positions.

What the GOP needs is a candidate who inspires the base, but is not perceived as an extremist. The only candidate I can imagine doing that is Santorum. However, I would never support Santorum. But unlike many here, I don't think the average american independent is like me.
 
I've heard some suggest the GOP might have to go to a brokered convention if a clear winner doesn't take hold before then. Conservative David Frum explains why that will not happen:

Why the GOP Will Not Have a Brokered Convention


"So there’s little reason to doubt that Romney will arrive in Tampa with a solid majority of delegates, probably an overwhelming majority of delegates.

But even in the exceedingly improbable case that Romney fell short, it would still be misleading to talk of a “brokered convention” for this powerful reason: there are no such thing as political “brokers” any more.
In the olden days, powerful local officials—governors, mayors—arrived at conventions in substantial control of blocks of delegates. The delegates were chosen by local powerholders and were often beholden to those powerholders for their jobs or livelihoods. When the governor or mayor told his delegates how to vote, they saluted.

Those conditions do not obtain any more. The delegates arriving in Tampa will have been elected by a democratic process. Who will have the clout to order a delegate elected on a Santorum slate that the time has come to switch to Jeb Bush? Nobody. A non-majority convention would be a venue in which individual delegates would feel themselves empowered to make their own decisions. They may be influenced by local business leaders or by Fox News or by a call from, say, former President Bush. Or they may not.

But if a handful of party leaders gather in some hotel room and agree amongst themselves on a candidate, the question will be: who will make the delegates listen? Nobody."

Why the GOP Will Not Have a Brokered Convention
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom