• 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!

Mitt Romney in 2016: Yes, or No?

Does it make sense for Romney t run again?

  • Absoutely. He's by far the best shot the RNC has.

    Votes: 9 9.4%

  • He might be good if he can shake the 47% remark he made.

    Votes: 1 1.0%

  • I really don't care who the RNC puts up at this point

    Votes: 10 10.4%

  • The guy is DOA. Find some new blood.

    Votes: 46 47.9%

  • History suggests that he should not run again.

    Votes: 30 31.3%
  • Total voters
    96
  • Poll closed .
CRUE CAB said:
Yea, but he is an old white man and we don't need any more stinkin' old white men.
Click to expand...

I don't care if the President is purple with orange spots and I don't care how old he/she is. But I would like to have somebody who doesn't have to learn everything on the job, most especially when he/she doesn't have any aptitude to learn it.
 
calamity said:
The Repunlican candidates for president since Y2000, of course.
Click to expand...
Good thing Gores daddy didnt leave him a wealthy man. Of course Kerry married money (and good on him...anyone willing to marry that yeti for her millions deserves that money). But it IS interesting how readily liberals cite wealth as if it were a 'bad' thing...especially when it comes to republican candidates...while ignoring that the wealthiest politicians are in fact...democrats.
 
tres borrachos said:
He's already run for POTUS twice. And lost both times.

Which President in the last 50 years ran for POTUS twice, and lost both times, and then came back to win on try #3?
Click to expand...

The way Romney could win is having the electorate making up for the obvious mistake they made last time when they either supported Barrack Obama or didn't sufficiently get out the vote. The Republicans could do what the Democrats did in tying Romney to Bush.

In the next election they could connect whatever Dem candidate there is to Barrack Obama, and if Hillary gets the nomination that would not be a problem. Any Democrat challenger would have difficulty distancing themselves from the destructive policies of Barrack Obama.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Yea, but he is an old white man and we don't need any more stinkin' old white men.
Click to expand...
I'll take a "stinkin" old white man over a bumbling black goof off any day of the week.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Because he has some heavy successful business experience so he knows the issues and problems associated with that, he has proved his ability to assess problems and address them in a constructive way, i.e. the 2002 Olympics, and he has demonstrated political skills and willingness and ability to build consensus and get things done regardless of the political party in power and within the existing laws. Who else is running who can claim those kinds of credentials?
Click to expand...

America isn't a business and numerous politicians can make vague claims about willingness to form a consensus. An extra billion dollars of federal aid helped romney revitalize a scandalous and mismanaged Olympics.
 
VanceMack said:
Good thing Gores daddy didnt leave him a wealthy man. Of course Kerry married money (and good on him...anyone willing to marry that yeti for her millions deserves that money). But it IS interesting how readily liberals cite wealth as if it were a 'bad' thing...especially when it comes to republican candidates...while ignoring that the wealthiest politicians are in fact...democrats.
Click to expand...

How come financial success is only a sign of qualification if you're a republican?
 
Deuce said:
How come financial success is only a sign of qualification if you're a republican?
Click to expand...
The only people that continuously brings it up are liberals.
 
Deuce said:
America isn't a business and numerous politicians can make vague claims about willingness to form a consensus. An extra billion dollars of federal aid helped romney revitalize a scandalous and mismanaged Olympics.
Click to expand...
You seem to be making it up as you go along. Have you actually read much about those Olympics or have you just read Leftist headlines?
 
pbrauer said:
At this point, it doesn't matter who they put up, they will ultimately put up another loser like John McCain and Mitt Romney, that's because the Fox News crowd tries to nominate the most extreme candidate in the running pushing out the the best candidates. Jon Huntsman would have done a far better job than Romney did.
Click to expand...
Jon Huntsman should have run as a Democrat. Romney is closer to Conservative values.
 
VanceMack said:
The only people that continuously brings it up are liberals.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, Romney's wealth was used against him implying he was not 'a man of the people'. That's why, with $100,000,000.00 dollars in the bank, Hillary claims she is struggling to makes ends meet and will fight for income equality (though not effecting her own income) and the War on Women. Real issues like the debt, open borders, Middle East, etc. will be ignored or rendered meaningless with her meandering platitudes.
 
Deuce said:
America isn't a business and numerous politicians can make vague claims about willingness to form a consensus. An extra billion dollars of federal aid helped romney revitalize a scandalous and mismanaged Olympics.
Click to expand...

There are many areas of the economy that should be looked at in a business-like manner. Income and outgoing expenses being a couple of the basics. The lack of business experience has to contributed to the economic mess and moral malaise we see in America today.
 
Grant said:
Oh, yes, Romney's wealth was used against him implying he was not 'a man of the people'. That's why, with $100,000,000.00 dollars in the bank, Hillary claims she is struggling to makes ends meet and will fight for income equality (though not effecting her own income) and the War on Women. Real issues like the debt, open borders, Middle East, etc. will be ignored or rendered meaningless with her meandering platitudes.
Click to expand...

And yet liberals remember FDR, a member of New Yorks richest upper class families, as one of the greatest presidents of all time
 
Dooble said:
Jon Huntsman should have run as a Democrat. Romney is closer to Conservative values.
Click to expand...

Maybe, perhaps after he decided to run for president as a Republican and changed a whole lot of his stances on different issues. Romney doing this has created a trust factor, even within his own party. That trust factor defeated him in the Republican Primaries in 2008. In 2012 Romney had the organization and the money, in many states he outspent his opponents by 10-1, that is all his opponents combined. He won the nomination, lost the election.

But that trust factor stayed with him. I seen it in Georgia, quite a lot of Georgia Republicans didn't trust him. Sure they voted for him vs. Obama. But they showed no energy, no enthusiasm. In fact any Tom, Dick or Harry would have done.
 
Dooble said:
I stumbled across an article that talks about a possible third presidential campaign for Mitt Romney in 2016. Now before you role your eyes and pronounce this notion officially deceased. I encourage you to read the article below, first.

America needs Mitt Romney in 2016 - San Francisco Bay Area Moderate Conservative | Examiner.com
Click to expand...

Interesting article. My favorite parts:

"Voters are annoyed with Obama’s stilted ideology and the strong odor of incompetence"

"Call Mitt Romney what you will, but his core competence is just that: competence. Unlike career politicians who tend to rise or fall on the level of their oratory, Mitt is, at his core, a chief executive"

"No doubt Mitt is more comfortable tackling complex problems and analyzing data than kissing babies or yucking it up on a rope line. But maybe that's what America needs in 2016, and given the multitude of today's challenges..."
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
And yet liberals remember FDR, a member of New Yorks richest upper class families, as one of the greatest presidents of all time
Click to expand...
Exactly. People looked at the issues at the time and, though they may have disagreed on some of them, they didn't focus so much on extraneous issues that had nothing to do with governing the country. They didn't worry about a dog carrier or high-school hi-jinks such as we saw, to everyone's shame, in the last election.

They weren't Red States or Blue States then -they were Americans and voted on what they thought would be best for their country.
.
 
Perotista said:
Maybe, perhaps after he decided to run for president as a Republican and changed a whole lot of his stances on different issues.
Click to expand...
All of us do that, including politicians. I doubt we would someone who didn't change their opinions over time. Barrack Obama certainly changed his but this was never exploited by the Republicans or, of course, the media. The questions should always be, who would be best at managing the country? After that everything is politics. The answer, given the candidates qualifications and experience, should have been clear
 
Kobie said:
Obama's approval rating is still higher than Bush's when he left office. Has history weighed in on Bush? Do you know what history means?
Click to expand...

Yes it has.

And yes I know what history means, do you?
 
Grant said:
Oh, yes, Romney's wealth was used against him implying he was not 'a man of the people'. That's why, with $100,000,000.00 dollars in the bank, Hillary claims she is struggling to makes ends meet and will fight for income equality (though not effecting her own income) and the War on Women. Real issues like the debt, open borders, Middle East, etc. will be ignored or rendered meaningless with her meandering platitudes.
Click to expand...
WHy didnt you know? SHe and Bill retired from the White House broke and penniless. She was jes a po whaite chile...but she kept on struggling...and dont worry...she ain noways tired...

 
Grant said:
All of us do that, including politicians. I doubt we would someone who didn't change their opinions over time. Barrack Obama certainly changed his but this was never exploited by the Republicans or, of course, the media. The questions should always be, who would be best at managing the country? After that everything is politics. The answer, given the candidates qualifications and experience, should have been clear
Click to expand...

What is and isn't, even reality and truth does not matter. What matters is the perception the voters have of a candidate. How a voter perceives a candidate or even an issue, that is how they will vote or determine whether they will support or oppose any particular issue.
 
Porchev said:
Interesting article. My favorite parts:

"Voters are annoyed with Obama’s stilted ideology and the strong odor of incompetence"

"Call Mitt Romney what you will, but his core competence is just that: competence. Unlike career politicians who tend to rise or fall on the level of their oratory, Mitt is, at his core, a chief executive"

"No doubt Mitt is more comfortable tackling complex problems and analyzing data than kissing babies or yucking it up on a rope line. But maybe that's what America needs in 2016, and given the multitude of today's challenges..."
Click to expand...
Those were pretty much my favorite parts as well. I really think Romney needs to take another shot at it. Especially when the RNC is fractured and pretty much leaderless.
 
VanceMack said:
WHy didnt you know? SHe and Bill retired from the White House broke and penniless. She was jes a po whaite chile...but she kept on struggling...and dont worry...she ain noways tired...
Click to expand...
Yes, the Clintons as sharecroppers.

She and her staff must be laughing at their supporters when they think up this stuff. There seems to be no limits as to what their party members might believe, nothing to crazy. She probably regrets not coming come up with the "Hope and Change" slogan, despite every politician since elections began making the same promise. They are incapable of embarrassment.
 
Perotista said:
What is and isn't, even reality and truth does not matter. What matters is the perception the voters have of a candidate. How a voter perceives a candidate or even an issue, that is how they will vote or determine whether they will support or oppose any particular issue.
Click to expand...

Yes, politicians say that perception is reality and that's what they go for. So if they want to portray Mitt Romney as a spoiled rich kid out of touch with the American people, that\s what they 'll do. And if Hillary Clinton can convince voters that she is a struggling mother trying to make ends meet and keep her family together, that's what she'll do.

Mitt Romney came up with a quite thorough North American energy plan, which is so important to America's future, but the MSM focused on his haircut, or some silly thing. Maybe we really do get the governments we deserve.
 
Grant said:
Yes, the Clintons as sharecroppers.

She and her staff must be laughing at their supporters when they think up this stuff. There seems to be no limits as to what their party members might believe, nothing to crazy. She probably regrets not coming come up with the "Hope and Change" slogan, despite every politician since elections began making the same promise. They are incapable of embarrassment.
Click to expand...
I have long ago said that I believe Hillary will win if she gets the dem nomination. In fact I believe we have become such a dependent nation that until there is a catastrophic collapse, I dont see a republican winning the White House again.

That being said...I laugh my ass off at the prospect of Hillary Clinton championing womens causes and trumpeting the "War on Women" argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom