• 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!

Did The 47% Video of Mitt Romney Kill His Chances of Winning?

Did the 47% video save President Obama from losing?

  • Total voters
    54
Crovax said:
And so will democrats which was the point of Mitt's 47% comment to begin with before he turned it into a gaffe



Why is that, Romney was the best choice out of the bunch.
Click to expand...

and in the end, the independents made the choice for the nation
as always happens unless there is some candidate who pulls across party lines. anyone remember the last time that happened?
 
Of Course it did if you think he wanted to be president you are delusional.
 
Crovax said:
And so will democrats which was the point of Mitt's 47% comment to begin with before he turned it into a gaffe
Click to expand...
Except the Democrats nominated someone who is considered a Democrat.


Crovax said:
Why is that, Romney was the best choice out of the bunch.
Click to expand...
No Romney was not the best choice of the bunch. He was appointed by establishment Republicans and Fox News.
 
reinoe said:
Except the Democrats nominated someone who is considered a Democrat.



No Romney was not the best choice of the bunch. He was appointed by establishment Republicans and Fox News.
Click to expand...

I need a laugh-who was a better GOP candidate who actually was interested in Running?
 
tres borrachos said:
Why? Romney was actually a very wise candidate in retrospect.
Click to expand...

He may be very smart but he wasn't socially smart. He didn't have that panache to come off as honest when he spoke. I heard several people say that he had a slimey quality to his voice, and while I didn't agree with that there was something lacking about him or he'd have won.
 
TurtleDude said:
I need a laugh-who was a better GOP candidate who actually was interested in Running?
Click to expand...

Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman. I also believe Ron Paul would have been a better candidate with independents.
 
reinoe said:
Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman. I also believe Ron Paul would have been a better candidate with independents.
Click to expand...

LOL dismissed as idiocy. Huntsman's anemic campaign effort was even worse than GHWB's in 92. What made JH popular with talking heads was the fact he had no chance against their believed Obama. all the ranting about wealth and his religion that was used against Mitt would have hit JH who didn't have near the resume. Johnson had Zero name recognition. Ron paul was seen as a goofy isolationist by many moderates, republics and independents on foreign affairs.
 
reinoe said:
Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman. I also believe Ron Paul would have been a better candidate with independents.
Click to expand...

Paul would be death for the independent vote. Absolute cold clammy death. He would get a smaller percentage of the independent vote than any candidate in recent memory. Once his views on civil rights laws are trumpeted, he will be very lucky to get 40% of the popular vote.
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL dismissed as idiocy. Huntsman's anemic campaign effort was even worse than GHWB's in 92. What made JH popular with talking heads was the fact he had no chance against their believed Obama. all the ranting about wealth and his religion that was used against Mitt would have hit JH who didn't have near the resume. Johnson had Zero name recognition. Ron paul was seen as a goofy isolationist by many moderates, republics and independents on foreign affairs.
Click to expand...

the question was properly answered
you responded to a different question, who would have been more electable
but any of the three mentioned would have been better candidates ... especially Johnson. Johnson could have defeated Obama
 
reinoe said:
He may be very smart but he wasn't socially smart. He didn't have that panache to come off as honest when he spoke. I heard several people say that he had a slimey quality to his voice, and while I didn't agree with that there was something lacking about him or he'd have won.
Click to expand...

I met the man more than once over the course of quite a few years. The second time I met him was almost a year after the first time. He remembered my name which surprised me. I found nothing slimey about him. In fact just the opposite. I found him to be very warm and articulate. After meeting him, it didn't surprise me at all that he was such a successful businessman.

What was lacking about him was his ability to win over minorities and the young voters in my opinion.
 
justabubba said:
the question was properly answered
you responded to a different question, who would have been more electable
but any of the three mentioned would have been better candidates ... especially Johnson. Johnson could have defeated Obama
Click to expand...

LOL. No, no he could not have.
 
Kobie said:
LOL. No, no he could not have.
Click to expand...

with the still slow economy and no reason for hopefulness on the horizon, the public was looking for a viable alternative to Obama
Johnson was a very popular republican governor in a democratic state. he was the kind of candidate those of us in the middle were hoping for. and if the republicans would not have excluded him from the primary, just as they did to Ron Paul in the prior race, Johnson could very possibly have wound up on the ticket and taken the white house
the republicans did in 2008 and 2012 what the democrats did with gore, kerry and dukakis. offered a loser as candidate
 
reinoe said:
Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman. I also believe Ron Paul would have been a better candidate with independents.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul couldn't manage more than 10% of the GOP primary vote he would have been embarrassed worse than Goldwater in the general election, not to mention Gary Johnson who did run in the general election and got a whole 1% of the vote.

Just because those candidates fit your political views better does not make them more electable. Romney was about me 4th choice ideologically out of all those that were running but it was pretty obvious that he was the best candidate for the general election.
 
Crovax said:
Ron Paul couldn't manage more than 10% of the GOP primary vote he would have been embarrassed worse than Goldwater in the general election, not to mention Gary Johnson who did run in the general election and got a whole 1% of the vote.

Just because those candidates fit your political views better does not make them more electable. Romney was about me 4th choice ideologically out of all those that were running but it was pretty obvious that he was the best candidate for the general election.
Click to expand...

what was asked was not who was more electable but who would have been a better candidate
and those three names would all have been better candidates
 
justabubba said:
with the still slow economy and no reason for hopefulness on the horizon, the public was looking for a viable alternative to Obama
Johnson was a very popular republican governor in a democratic state. he was the kind of candidate those of us in the middle were hoping for. and if the republicans would not have excluded him from the primary, just as they did to Ron Paul in the prior race, Johnson could very possibly have wound up on the ticket and taken the white house
the republicans did in 2008 and 2012 what the democrats did with gore, kerry and dukakis. offered a loser as candidate
Click to expand...

Johnson is far right on economic issues and far left on social issues and compromising on none of them, that is not the middle
 
justabubba said:
what was asked was not who was more electable but who would have been a better candidate
and those three names would all have been better candidates
Click to expand...

Good candidates have the ability to win elections. None of those 3 had that.
 
Crovax said:
Johnson is far right on economic issues and far left on social issues and compromising on none of them, that is not the middle
Click to expand...

my sense is that fiscal conservatism and social liberalism would have appealed to the independents in the middle ... and those are the voters who determine national elections
 
justabubba said:
my sense is that fiscal conservatism and social liberalism would have appealed to the independents in the middle ... and those are the voters who determine national elections
Click to expand...

my sense is that libertarianism especially the type that deifies purity in ideology above all else will always be a fringe element.
 
tres borrachos said:
You just described Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...

Until he uttered some undemocratic statements, that is. Best he kept quiet about it. He wouldn't have fallen into the "1%'er who dislikes lower and lower-middle class folks" trap.
 
Crovax said:
my sense is that libertarianism especially the type that deifies purity in ideology above all else will always be a fringe element.
Click to expand...

Gary Johnson isn't anything like that. For example, he doesn't believe we should do away with public education, but is a supporter of vouchers thinking it will help increase school choice. A libertarian like myself is against school vouchers as it expands the domain of the state and furthers their hold on education. In fact, I would argue that it lowers school choice instead of expands it as it gives them an excuse to further control private schools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom