• 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.

Does Romney stand a snowballs chance in you know where to win the election?

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
29,957
Reaction score
14,680
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I personally will say no.

Not just because it is difficult to win against a sitting president that is not very unpopular. And not just because the economic situation has started on it's way upward. No, it is much more basic than that.

1. Let's begin with the simple mathmetics of the race, last presidential campaign bank on McCain to bring his home state to the GOP. Romney does not stand any chance of personally bringing any states to which he is connected. He will not win his birth state of Michigan. He was barely able to fend off Santorum there and in a state that has gone Democratic in the last 5 elections, one must conclude that this state will almost certainly go to Obama.
The same can be said for the state he was governor of, Massachusetts, in the past 4 elections no democratic presidential candidate scored under 60% of the vote (average was 61.5%) compared to the highest for a GOP candidate of 37%. On average, the democratic presidential candidate wins there with a 28% lead (in the past 4 elections that is). So in Massachusetts Romney is also not going to carry that state.

2. Next is his public image, he is a rich, white, a guy and a mormon. And when I say rich, I mean proper filthy rich. He is proper fithly rich In a country where most people are not. In a lot of polls about Obama people are asked ""He understands the problems of ordinary Americans", think about when that question is asked about Romney, the man of slip ups like:

- My wife drives a couple of cadillacs
- “I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners.”
- I too, had feared the “pink slip” during my life.
- “I’ll tell you what. Ten thousand bucks. A $10,000 bet.”
- “I’m also unemployed.”
- “Corporations are people, my friend.”
- “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”
- says he 370,000$ fee was "not very much"

He is the perfect sitting duck for shows like the Today show and even a little bit the Colbert Report.

He also seems to put his foot in his mouth and still keep babbling on, like when he spoke in Michigan and he said:

“I was born and raised here. I love this state. It seems right here. The trees are the right height,” he told the crowd. “I like seeing the lakes. I love the lakes. There’s something very special here. The Great Lakes, but also all the little inland lakes that dot the parts of Michigan. I love cars.”

3. The man is stiff, he is does not look very inspirational to me and I think to many people might see it that way too.

4. He is not republican/conservative enough on social issues

5. he is a great target the Super Pacs from the democratic side, because the man flip flops on very fundamental issues:

He was pro-choice before he became pro-life:

Romney, Oct. 29, 2002: “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose”

Romney, Dec. 16, 2007: “The right next step in the, in the fight to preserve the sanctity of life is to see Roe v. Wade overturned.”

he flopped on immigration (big issue for the Latino vote)

he flopped on Reagan

he flopped on embryonic stemcell research

Romney has flip flopped on a lot of issues, which is not strange because he wanted the job in Massachusetts so his he set his moral compass to "not too conservative" with all the opinions that belong to that, now he wants the big job, president of the USA so he needs all the really republican very conservative voters on his side so he is flopping like mad to look as conservative as he could possibly look like.




So we have had electability issues, in he does not bring in any big states to which he was formerly connected and steal them away from Obama. Then we had personality issues with his wealth, the connnection issues he has with normal people, the boring personality, the fact that he likes to put his foot into his mouth and still keep babbling nonsense, the fact that he flip flopps almost as bad as John Kerry did and the fact that he is in no way the best liked candidate for the strong conservate base of the party.

Then there is still one big issue left, number 6 on the list of issues for Romney, that last one is his faith.

6. Mormon. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, a faith that has been connected to cults that allow multiple wives, a faith where some have the nasty habit of performing baptisms on people they have no business in baptising. People like Obama's mother, Anne Frank, Simon Wiesenthal, Adolf Hitler and many jews who died in concentration camps. En then there are more issues, about the stuffs they ingest (or do not ingest like alcohol, coffee, tea, etc. etc.) and even about them having mormon underwear.

It was hard enough for the first Catholic to be chosen into office and for the first African American to be chosen as a president. I just do not think the US is ready willing and able to welcome a mormon as the next president.



Finallly,what is the upside to Romney? Well, he is a member of the GOP, he is really rich (advertising), has rich buddies (Superpacs), is white and for a lot of voters, he is not Obama.

Please remember, this is my personal observation based on the campaign I have seen so far, my following of US politics for many years and my views as an outsider, I do not hate or dislike mr. Romney but tried (from my point of view) to see what chances are that Romney will/can defeat Obama, and I just don't think it is going to happen.
 
look at the approval ratings for Romney,

favorable 33%
unfavorable 46%
unsure 21%

and looking historically, his favorable approval rating has never gone above 39% but usually is about 35%. On the flip side, his unfavorable rating has been rising slowly but surely, at the top his unfavorable rating was 49% but lately has been about 45%

When this is compared to Barack Obama, one can see:

Favorable 51%
Unfavorable 45%
Unsure 3%

Historically seen Obama has been around the 50% for the past 2 years in opinion polls. His unfavorable rating has been about the level of Romney.
 
His best asset is his opponent.
 
Meaning what?

I didn't understand it either because Obama has all the trump cards in his hands, Romney only has loads of money to back him, not much else.
 
I didn't understand it either because Obama has all the trump cards in his hands, Romney only has loads of money to back him, not much else.

WHich trump card would those be? Killing jobs? Out of control spending? Obamacare, the most hated piece of legislation in history? More rounds of golf than any other prez? Cutting veterans bennies?

Get real, Obama isn't going to run on his record. I think we all know that.
 
Romey cannot beat Obama. Its going to be VERY close though, I dont care what anyone says. Democrats that I talk to think its a done deal....wrong. Dont kid yourself, once the general election starts to come into shape it will be a neck to neck battle. I see Obama winning by 30-40 electoral votes. Hell, it could even end up being a 269-269 electoral college tie with Omaha, Nebraska having the final tie breaker vote. Obama has been here in Omaha for a long time setting up a door-to-door campaign strategy. This is very smart and Im not even kidding. Omaha, NE could decide the election. It went for Obama in 08, could be a tough win this year around.

That is a worse case scenario, I still think Obama will win Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado, AZ, and Virginia. He may lose Ohio, North Carolina and Iowa....but I have my doubts with Iowa. Obama could lose alot of battleground states and still be Ok. It's just too hard for the GOP to win this. They can make it a ball game, but can't win this election. I would give them a 38% of winning. They should concentrate on the house and senate. This is where things get done anyways. People have way too much faith in the presidency, America is a 3-way team, people tend to forget this.
 
Obama does have a lot of advantages, he will not be examined as closely as the Republican will be, and economy related things that have been used against Republicans in the past will be downplayed. For example, much of the media went after Bush big time for gas prices and unemployment rates that were a lot lower than they are now, but Obama will mostly get a pass about everything.

As for Romney, he was successful at running a business, a State, and the Olympics; he is smart and communicates better than our last Republican President, so he does have a lot of strengths. And I think he is the Republican candidate that appeals to the broadest range of people. So he does have a good chance, but right now it looks like any Republican has a good chance of winning:

Election 2012: Generic Presidential Ballot - Rasmussen Reports™
 
WHich trump card would those be? Killing jobs? Out of control spending? Obamacare, the most hated piece of legislation in history? More rounds of golf than any other prez? Cutting veterans bennies?

Get real, Obama isn't going to run on his record. I think we all know that.

Killing jobs? I think the downturn in the economy on the back of years of failed oversight from the Republicans, a war and bad decisions by big corporations took care of that.

Out of control spending? Maybe, but guess what, that overspending would be way less crippling if the republicans did not have to protect their rich cronies from having to pay more taxes. People like Romney who makes 347,000 dollar in a year, has 200 million on the bank and still only pays 14% tax. If the republicans wouldn't make fairer taxation possible than this administration would not be in the overspeding cycle it now is.

Obamacare might be the most hated republican piece of legislation but it is total BS to say it is the most hated piece of legislation in history.

Fact (not the republican party propaganda)

45% say Obamacare is a good thing
44% say it is a bad thing
11% are unsure

in a poll just a little while ago they asked:

"What would you like to see Congress do when it comes to the health care law? They should expand the law. They should keep the law as is. They should repeal the law and replace it with a Republican-sponsored alternative. OR, They should repeal the law and not replace it."

35% said expand it
19% said keep as it is
18% said replace with a GOP law
19% said repeal and not replace
9% refused to answer or weren't sure

Hardly a ringing endorsement for the republican position. And it seems that the level of hatred for this law is over-stated to say the least.


Yes, how dare Obama play golf 32 times in three years time. Pathetic attempt apdst. We can't all spend at our ranch in Texas or at camp David.


And FYI, the budget for veterans have gone up, not down. There are some things that may have less money going to veterans but your claim is not ringing true

As Joe Violante, national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, also said:

"The president has increased vet funding over the years and has expanded many programs, women vets, caregivers and PTSD and TBI (traumatic brain injury), to name a few. He is also responsible for supporting advance appropriations for VA health care funding. While you are correct in saying there are proposals to TRICARE fees, these are not usually considered vet programs and come under DOD. Thus far, vet programs have done well under this administration," Violante said in an email. (source, politiifact).
 
...Get real, Obama isn't going to run on his record. I think we all know that.

sure he will. and his record will help him win.

the other help will come from the idiocy & insanity of his right-wing opponent, or GOPers staying home if Romney is the nominee.

either way, its four more years of Obama. :)
 
sure he will. and his record will help him win.

the other help will come from the idiocy & insanity of his right-wing opponent, or GOPers staying home if Romney is the nominee.

either way, its four more years of Obama. :)

Followed by 8 years of Hillary Rodham Clinton
 
I personally will say no.

Not just because it is difficult to win against a sitting president that is not very unpopular. And not just because the economic situation has started on it's way upward. No, it is much more basic than that.

1. Let's begin with the simple mathmetics of the race, last presidential campaign bank on McCain to bring his home state to the GOP. Romney does not stand any chance of personally bringing any states to which he is connected. He will not win his birth state of Michigan. He was barely able to fend off Santorum there and in a state that has gone Democratic in the last 5 elections, one must conclude that this state will almost certainly go to Obama.
The same can be said for the state he was governor of, Massachusetts, in the past 4 elections no democratic presidential candidate scored under 60% of the vote (average was 61.5%) compared to the highest for a GOP candidate of 37%. On average, the democratic presidential candidate wins there with a 28% lead (in the past 4 elections that is). So in Massachusetts Romney is also not going to carry that state.

2. Next is his public image, he is a rich, white, a guy and a mormon. And when I say rich, I mean proper filthy rich. He is proper fithly rich In a country where most people are not. In a lot of polls about Obama people are asked ""He understands the problems of ordinary Americans", think about when that question is asked about Romney, the man of slip ups like:

- My wife drives a couple of cadillacs
- “I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners.”
- I too, had feared the “pink slip” during my life.
- “I’ll tell you what. Ten thousand bucks. A $10,000 bet.”
- “I’m also unemployed.”
- “Corporations are people, my friend.”
- “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”
- says he 370,000$ fee was "not very much"

He is the perfect sitting duck for shows like the Today show and even a little bit the Colbert Report.

He also seems to put his foot in his mouth and still keep babbling on, like when he spoke in Michigan and he said:

“I was born and raised here. I love this state. It seems right here. The trees are the right height,” he told the crowd. “I like seeing the lakes. I love the lakes. There’s something very special here. The Great Lakes, but also all the little inland lakes that dot the parts of Michigan. I love cars.”

3. The man is stiff, he is does not look very inspirational to me and I think to many people might see it that way too.

4. He is not republican/conservative enough on social issues

5. he is a great target the Super Pacs from the democratic side, because the man flip flops on very fundamental issues:

He was pro-choice before he became pro-life:

Romney, Oct. 29, 2002: “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose”

Romney, Dec. 16, 2007: “The right next step in the, in the fight to preserve the sanctity of life is to see Roe v. Wade overturned.”

he flopped on immigration (big issue for the Latino vote)

he flopped on Reagan

he flopped on embryonic stemcell research

Romney has flip flopped on a lot of issues, which is not strange because he wanted the job in Massachusetts so his he set his moral compass to "not too conservative" with all the opinions that belong to that, now he wants the big job, president of the USA so he needs all the really republican very conservative voters on his side so he is flopping like mad to look as conservative as he could possibly look like.




So we have had electability issues, in he does not bring in any big states to which he was formerly connected and steal them away from Obama. Then we had personality issues with his wealth, the connection issues he has with normal people, the boring personality, the fact that he likes to put his foot into his mouth and still keep babbling nonsense, the fact that he flip flops almost as bad as John Kerry did and the fact that he is in no way the best liked candidate for the strong conservative base of the party.

Then there is still one big issue left, number 6 on the list of issues for Romney, that last one is his faith.

6. Mormon. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, a faith that has been connected to cults that allow multiple wives, a faith where some have the nasty habit of performing baptisms on people they have no business in baptising. People like Obama's mother, Anne Frank, Simon Wiesenthal, Adolf Hitler and many jews who died in concentration camps. En then there are more issues, about the stuffs they ingest (or do not ingest like alcohol, coffee, tea, etc. etc.) and even about them having mormon underwear.

It was hard enough for the first Catholic to be chosen into office and for the first African American to be chosen as a president. I just do not think the US is ready willing and able to welcome a mormon as the next president.



Finallly,what is the upside to Romney? Well, he is a member of the GOP, he is really rich (advertising), has rich buddies (Superpacs), is white and for a lot of voters, he is not Obama.

Please remember, this is my personal observation based on the campaign I have seen so far, my following of US politics for many years and my views as an outsider, I do not hate or dislike mr. Romney but tried (from my point of view) to see what chances are that Romney will/can defeat Obama, and I just don't think it is going to happen.

Number four should be he is not a conservative, not he is not conservative enough. Four and five is what destroys Romney's chance of winning the presidency.Most will simply vote for a lib with a D next to his name instead of one with a R next to his name.Real conservatives refuse to prop up another liberal republican. Romney has flipped so much that no one in their right mind would trust Romney.


The fact he is a Mormon is irrelevant to almost all voters.The reason evangelicals won't vote for Romney is because Romney is a liberal and most evangelicals are conservative. The evangelicals won't vote for Romney because he is a Mormon is nothing more than a bull **** Mormon card invented by libs trying to downplay ROmney's liberalism and liberal republicans trying to guilt voters into voting for Romney.

The fact Romney is a rich guy is irrelevant to most people who have an adult mentality. Republicans , conservatives and most other people with an adult mentality do not fault a man because of his successful and or rish. That is something on occu-tards and other green with envy whiners care about.
 
i can think of a few scenarios in which he could win. it would require a specific set of circumstances. i don't find it likely, but there is a lot of time between now and November.

either way, he won't be getting my vote. i've cast my last vote for the greater of two supply side interventionist hawks.
 
Obama's debt, the lingering economy and his overall economic record is the best thing Romney can run on.

you mean 3% GDP, stock market rising 55%, unemployment going down 2%, corporate profits at an all-time-high?
 
you mean 3% GDP, stock market rising 55%, unemployment going down 2%, corporate profits at an all-time-high?
The first two stats you mentioned are positives without a doubt, but unemployment hasn't gone down 2 percent, and corporate profits aren't exactly a populist message. That factored in with around 5 trillion in debt are great talking points for Romney.
 
The first two stats you mentioned are positives without a doubt, but unemployment hasn't gone down 2 percent, and corporate profits aren't exactly a populist message. That factored in with around 5 trillion in debt are great talking points for Romney.

And Obama will respond, or superpacs from unions or Soros will respond if Obama takes the highground, that rich fat cats and their political mouth pieces i.e. the Republicans have insulated the rich from paying their fair share and that without the Bush taxcuts there would be a lot less deficit. If I remember correctly, before Bush the budget deficit was non-existent (but I am going to have to look that up). It was Bush and the republcans who ran the US into the ground with bad policies and worse supervision over the budget and the economy.

It is not Obama's fault that he has been cleaning up the Republican mess while trying to kickstart the economy. Bush, Romney, Santorum and the entire GOP are to blame for the bad finances the US is in. Their wars and their failed fiscal policies have wrecked the US fiscal situation and their poor oversight into their republican supporters in big business have caused the 2008 stock crash and the housing market collapse.

It is a republican game plan, wreck the country and blame it on the opposition when they are forced to clean up their mess. It won't fly this time, people are wising up IMHO.
 
And Obama will respond, or superpacs from unions or Soros will respond if Obama takes the highground, that rich fat cats and their political mouth pieces i.e. the Republicans have insulated the rich from paying their fair share and that without the Bush taxcuts there would be a lot less deficit. If I remember correctly, before Bush the budget deficit was non-existent (but I am going to have to look that up). It was Bush and the republcans who ran the US into the ground with bad policies and worse supervision over the budget and the economy.

It is not Obama's fault that he has been cleaning up the Republican mess while trying to kickstart the economy. Bush, Romney, Santorum and the entire GOP are to blame for the bad finances the US is in. Their wars and their failed fiscal policies have wrecked the US fiscal situation and their poor oversight into their republican supporters in big business have caused the 2008 stock crash and the housing market collapse.

It is a republican game plan, wreck the country and blame it on the opposition when they are forced to clean up their mess. It won't fly this time, people are wising up IMHO.
Bush did a awful job with the economy, although it appears Obama isn't exactly a superstar either.

Somewhat true, although I don't see how Romney or Santorum are somehow more responsible for the debt incurred than the sitting president.

I'm not that conspiracy minded so I wouldn't go that far.
 
Bush did a awful job with the economy, although it appears Obama isn't exactly a superstar either.

Somewhat true, although I don't see how Romney or Santorum are somehow more responsible for the debt incurred than the sitting president.

I'm not that conspiracy minded so I wouldn't go that far.

He was a governor who supported George Bush when a democrat from his state was trying to become president, did he not?

He was member of the republican party, right?

He is rich, and for him and people like him, the republican made their tax policies which have been very bad for fiscal responsibility.
 
He probably stands a better chance than anyone else running right now, but yes he does stand a chance in winning.
 
He was a governor who supported George Bush when a democrat from his state was trying to become president, did he not?

He was member of the republican party, right?

He is rich, and for him and people like him, the republican made their tax policies which have been very bad for fiscal responsibility.
Yes, although that hardly incriminates Romney for someone else's irresponsibility it's simply voting along party lines and protecting his future as a candidate.

Are you implying anyone who is a Republican is somehow more responsible for the debt incurred than the sitting President?

Fiscal irresponsibility is not a lack of revenue, it's a excess of spending which our last two presidents have demonstrated.
 
Yes, although that hardly incriminates Romney for someone else's irresponsibility it's simply voting along party lines and protecting his future as a candidate.

Are you implying anyone who is a Republican is somehow more responsible for the debt incurred than the sitting President?

Fiscal irresponsibility is not a lack of revenue, it's a excess of spending which our last two presidents have demonstrated.

fiscal responsibility is making sure that what comes into the pocket of government is the same as what goes out. With the war and the economic downturn in 2008 it is not strange that some more money needs to go into the economy. With the lack of revenue coming in that has lead to problems.

2013 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2012 by President Obama)
2012 United States federal budget - $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)
2011 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
2010 United States federal budget - $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 United States federal budget - $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 United States federal budget - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)

Last year of Bush the mandatory expenditures were $1.89 trillion and the discretionary spending was $1.21 trillion
2013 for Obama has mandatory expenditures is $2.293 trillion the discretionary spending is $1.261 trillion

That proves that Obama has not been spending wildly, mandatory spending is set by existing laws, discretionary spending has just went by not that much so I don't know where you get the spend happy Obama from but I don't see that in the budgets.
 
fiscal responsibility is making sure that what comes into the pocket of government is the same as what goes out. With the war and the economic downturn in 2008 it is not strange that some more money needs to go into the economy. With the lack of revenue coming in that has lead to problems.

2013 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2012 by President Obama)
2012 United States federal budget - $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)
2011 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
2010 United States federal budget - $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 United States federal budget - $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 United States federal budget - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)

Last year of Bush the mandatory expenditures were $1.89 trillion and the discretionary spending was $1.21 trillion
2013 for Obama has mandatory expenditures is $2.293 trillion the discretionary spending is $1.261 trillion

That proves that Obama has not been spending wildly, mandatory spending is set by existing laws, discretionary spending has just went by not that much so I don't know where you get the spend happy Obama from but I don't see that in the budgets.

shouldn't Obama's budget for 2010 have been less than 2009, since the stimulus was in 2009?
 
Back
Top Bottom