• 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 declines 1 on 1 with Gingrich

MrMindSpeaker

MrMindSpeaker

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
192
Reaction score
31
Location
maryland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
was this a smart move on Romney's part?

Some would say that Romney needs to draw some of Newt's supporters to win the nomination, so was this the chance to do it?
 
Probably a smart move for Romney. I don't think he can beat Newt in a one on one debate. He probably could hold his own, but that really won't help him and a poor performance could really hurt. So there is really no upside to this for Romeny. His best hope for dealing with Newt is for Newt to self destruct on his own.
 
Romney did stump Newt in one of the debates. Was the only time I know of a pwn moment between the two.
 
I still say the smart money is on Mitt Romney winning the nomination, regardless of what the polls say. I think that Newt will inevitably say or do something stupid to ruin his campaign; he just can't help himself.

was this a smart move on Romney's part?

Some would say that Romney needs to draw some of Newt's supporters to win the nomination, so was this the chance to do it?
Click to expand...

I think Romney should have debated him, but for a different reason: Every time Newt opens his mouth in front of a television camera is an opportunity for him to seal his fate. Mitt Romney should try to maximize the number of those opportunities.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there'd be a lot of an upside for Romney to accept something like this now with it so early. There's still a lot of time left and as we've seen people have been flaming out as they get to the top. Indicators suggest Newt MAY be different, but its still early. Romney was smart to decline and IF things continue and Newt lasts for a while then perhaps throw it back out there at a later date.

From a non-political science perspective, I'm glad he did. I think its still early to say those two are the last ones standing and I'd rather see debates with more of the candidates in them.
 
The reason to refuse is not to agree with Gingrich that the primary is just Gingrich versus Romney - which is what Gingrich hopes.

Why not a Paul v. Gingrich debate? Bachman v. Gingrich debate. Would Gingrich accept?

Gingrich is so full of himself lately that the numbers of people who don't like him, even if may vote for him, is growing.
 
Romney's strategy to this point seems to be to remain aloof from the campaign, or at least to stay focused on Obama, and to let the notRomney's flame out on their own and/or tear each other up. I suspect he'll stay with that strategy for at least another month or two as he waits to see if Newt gets hoisted on his own petard.
 
Zyphlin said:
I don't think there'd be a lot of an upside for Romney to accept something like this now with it so early. There's still a lot of time left and as we've seen people have been flaming out as they get to the top. Indicators suggest Newt MAY be different, but its still early. Romney was smart to decline and IF things continue and Newt lasts for a while then perhaps throw it back out there at a later date.

From a non-political science perspective, I'm glad he did. I think its still early to say those two are the last ones standing and I'd rather see debates with more of the candidates in them.
Click to expand...
Just keep an eye on the fact that no one is busting Romney's chops. He's been on easy street for months.
 
American said:
Just keep an eye on the fact that no one is busting Romney's chops. He's been on easy street for months.
Click to expand...

He's been on easy street for years.

Romney's lack of courage to debate Newt will not impress the base. He is already not trusted, chickening out on a debate makes him look like a pusscake.
 
conservativeguy said:
He's been on easy street for years.

Romney's lack of courage to debate Newt will not impress the base. He is already not trusted, chickening out on a debate makes him look like a pusscake.
Click to expand...
Romney has been getting a free pass from both the conservative and liberal media. So long as he does he will continue to do as little as possible including debating Gingrich. What amazes me is that he attempted this in 08 and look what happened. It could very well happen again. I am not thrilled with Gingrich being the one to run against Obama, even though Gingrich does have some good skills and the knowledge to actually run this country, in technical regards anyway. We need drastic reform from the outside. Gringrich won't be providing that. Gingrich IS more conservative than Romney... Then again so are many blue dog dems, and that is why the voting base of the party is clamoring to anything conservative at the behest of the GOP establishment which wants nothing to do with conservatism unfortunately.
 
The problem with the economic conservatives of the Republican field is that they also are hardcore social conservatives and all the anti-people that involves.

There isn't a true economic conservative in a traditional sense on the ticket that doesn't then carry a lot of far rightwing baggage.

Gingrich and Romney both are as establishment as it gets with Gingrich being the Republican Washington DC establishment candidate. A person could not possibly be more a Republican establish insider than Gingrich. That is is business and corporate profession.
 
joko104 said:
The problem with the economic conservatives of the Republican field is that they also are hardcore social conservatives and all the anti-people that involves.

There isn't a true economic conservative in a traditional sense on the ticket that doesn't then carry a lot of far rightwing baggage.

Gingrich and Romney both are as establishment as it gets with Gingrich being the Republican Washington DC establishment candidate. A person could not possibly be more a Republican establish insider than Gingrich. That is is business and corporate profession.
Click to expand...
That is my issue with Gingrich is that he is insider big time. I do think he would lead more conservatively than Romney, hell half the dems would. I left the GOP because of all the insider crap and the power the establishment has wielded in the recent years. I am looking for anyone who would be truly economically conservative and be not off the reservation when it comes to social issues. I don't mind the right to life stance so long as it is with reasonable moderation.
 
Kandahar said:
I think Romney should have debated him, but for a different reason: Every time Newt opens his mouth in front of a television camera is an opportunity for him to seal his fate. Mitt Romney should try to maximize the number of those opportunities.
Click to expand...

It's a great idea in theory, but the fact is that Romney also has some problems that could really come out into full-exposure. An example is his confrontation with Perry, where he ended up appealing to the moderator to intervene, something that struck a lot of people as weak. And then he had an interview, I think last week, where he was pressed on some of these flip-flopping charges, and he was visibly agitated and just couldn't respond well. Romney needs to sort that out before he'll be in a position to put the pressure up on Newt.
 
With Donald Trump as moderator, everyone else will be relegated to the "supporting" cast.

Donald is there to promote Donald!
 
00timh said:
That is my issue with Gingrich is that he is insider big time. I do think he would lead more conservatively than Romney, hell half the dems would. I left the GOP because of all the insider crap and the power the establishment has wielded in the recent years. I am looking for anyone who would be truly economically conservative and be not off the reservation when it comes to social issues. I don't mind the right to life stance so long as it is with reasonable moderation.
Click to expand...

The frustration of many moderate and "normal" people who would lean Republican is that you just defined the candidate they/you want - and that candidate doesn't appear to be one of the choices.
 
MrMindSpeaker said:
was this a smart move on Romney's part?

Some would say that Romney needs to draw some of Newt's supporters to win the nomination, so was this the chance to do it?
Click to expand...

Some would also say the GOP is punting this election cycle. Paul, Huntsman, and Pawlenty are/were the only serious candidates. Tim Pawlenty saw the writing on the wall when Bachmann won that Iowa straw poll, and he got out before too much of the stench got on him. The party has become a self-parody of its worst extreme. They're trying to appeal to the base and moderates/independents and Tea Party which is essentially the base, but not necessarily.

Bad mouthing Barack Obama only works in the broad strokes. When they start getting specific, the fact-checkers perk up and alarms go off, especially with Bachmann.

The anti-gay, anti-muslim stuff plays in certain parts of the country, but you always risk going too far with that and really stepping in it--as Bachmann often does.

Romney may just be sitting back a letting them self-destruct one by one, then he'll step forward as Mr Better-than-nothin' and beg Huntsman to get him the moderates.

Not meeting with Newt sends a signal. Newt is not a serious candidate, his 5 minutes are almost up...
 
Last edited:
Bachman and Perry are both possible comeback kids.

Paul was never a serious candidate as a Republican candidate. Among other things, he is far too furiously hardcore anti-Republican.
 
joko104 said:
Bachman and Perry are both possible comeback kids.
Click to expand...

Perry perhaps, but no chance at Bachmann. Even at her best she was still significantly low in the polls. I think her highest RCP polling didn't even go above 20%
 
joko104 said:
Bachman and Perry are both possible comeback kids.
Click to expand...

Both would indicate a punt on the part of the GOP...

Paul was never a serious candidate as a Republican candidate. Among other things, he is far too furiously hardcore anti-Republican.
Click to expand...

Paul has a serious libertarian following--more young people than all the others combined.

Paul is serious in that he's intelligent and capable of leading. Capable of beating Obama? Probably not. But he brings an interesting perspective to the table and keeps the others honest.

I've always said some of his positions are way too libertarian radical-chaos theory for me.... however, his position and the misuse of our military is bold.
 
joko104 said:
Bachman and Perry are both possible comeback kids.
Click to expand...

I really don't think either are likely to comeback. A large part of their appeal was simply being the anti-Romney candidate, but as folks got a better look at them they realized they didn't want them in them in the Oval office anymore than they want Romney. If Gingrich does implode, I'd look for Huntsman to become the new anti-Romney candidate.

I don't think Romney will get the nomination. The supporters of Cain, Perry, Bachman, and Gingrich all have one thing in common, they loath Romney and are willing to back almost anyone other than him. As people start to drop out, I don't expect Romney to be able to pick up many of the other candidate's supporters. If Gingrich is the last man standing with Romney, he'll get the lion's share of Perry, Bachman, and Cain supporters. Paul's people are pretty dedicated and probably won't go for either guy in droves, and Paul is likely to stay in it to the bitter end anyway. And Huntsman and Santorum don't have the following (as of now) to influence the winner.
 
Psychoclown said:
Probably a smart move for Romney. I don't think he can beat Newt in a one on one debate. He probably could hold his own, but that really won't help him and a poor performance could really hurt. So there is really no upside to this for Romeny. His best hope for dealing with Newt is for Newt to self destruct on his own.
Click to expand...

i think it was.....anyway, i hope that we see newt declaring himself the winner over and over again. since he's already named himself the winner, why should romney debate? i am starting to think newt is not as smart as advertised, he seems to be giving plenty of awkard sound bytes to the media. his arrogances shining through, i guess.
 
Obama and Axelrod couldn't get a better gift then the oppurtunity to launch a campaign against Gingrich. Newt has a walk in closet full of skeletons, and if he were the nominee, believe me, the left would make this election all about race once again, with Gingrich the "stereotypical" old white male. Even though Newt flip flopped and voted for Sonia Sotomayer, first he called her racist, and those remarks will be used as ammunition against him if he were to go against Obama.


With that said, I think it was a stellar idea in Mitt declining debating Newt. He will not out debate Newt, that's a given, so he has to weigh the pros and cons. The only good thing about it is possibly that Newt will contradict himself, or say something totally ridiculous. But the con is that Newt will destroy Romney in a battle of wits, hereby Mitt standing to loose alot of his support.

The pros about declining the debate far outweigh loosing his support.
 
Last edited:
This is the smartest thing he has done thus far. Newt would twist him like a pretzel.
 
The Prophet said:
Obama and Axelrod couldn't get a better gift then the oppurtunity to launch a campaign against Gingrich. Newt has a walk in closet full of skeletons, and if he were the nominee, believe me, the left would make this election all about race once again, with Gingrich the "stereotypical" old white male. Even though Newt flip flopped and voted for Sonia Sotomayer, first he called her racist, and those remarks will be used as ammunition against him if he were to go against Obama.


With that said, I think it was a stellar idea in Mitt declining debating Newt. He will not out debate Newt, that's a given, so he has to weigh the pros and cons. The only good thing about it is possibly that Newt will contradict himself, or say something totally ridiculous. But the con is that Newt will destroy Romney in a battle of wits, hereby Mitt standing to loose alot of his support.

The pros about declining the debate far outweigh loosing his support.
Click to expand...


Agreed, I don't think they're going to be that lucky. The GOP is going to punt with Romney, not turnover on downs.
 
hazlnut said:
Agreed, I don't think they're going to be that lucky. The GOP is going to punt with Romney, not turnover on downs.
Click to expand...

Yea I think Romney is the chosen one; he has already been selected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom