• 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!

Romney or Clintion for President in 2016?

Romney or Clinton in 2016

  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 15 65.2%

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 8 34.8%
  • Total voters
    23
Neither.
 
joko104 said:
If you contrast this poll to the poll of a Jeb Bush VS Hillary Clinton, you see the STRONG negative to Jeb Bush by comparison to Romney.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/212049-jeb-hillary-president-2016-a.html

While there is a HUGE push right now for Jeb Bush as he is the DC insider's choice, publicly there is a LOT of opposition to ANOTHER Bush presidency - both because he is a Bush and the dynasty effect against him, which with Romney ONLY works against Hillary.
Click to expand...

But the one thing a Jeb Bush nomination would do is put Florida and its 29 electoral votes into the GOP column. Bush could carry his home state. Romney has no chance of carrying his home state of Massachusetts and a less than 50-50 chance of carrying Florida unless he picks Rubio as his VP.

Bush would carry the same states McCain did back in 2008 plus add Florida to that mix which would bring him up to 220 with 270 needed to win. Romney would also carry the same states as McCain, but without Florida he would start off at 191. Hillary on the other hand would start off with 247, meaning a loss of Florida would guarantee her the election.
 
Perotista said:
But the one thing a Jeb Bush nomination would do is put Florida and its 29 electoral votes into the GOP column. Bush could carry his home state. Romney has no chance of carrying his home state of Massachusetts and a less than 50-50 chance of carrying Florida unless he picks Rubio as his VP.

Bush would carry the same states McCain did back in 2008 plus add Florida to that mix which would bring him up to 220 with 270 needed to win. Romney would also carry the same states as McCain, but without Florida he would start off at 191. Hillary on the other hand would start off with 247, meaning a loss of Florida would guarantee her the election.
Click to expand...

I understand your math. Not going state by state, in close states there could be an anti "Bush" enough to swing it blue. It isn't certain Bush would carry Florida just because of past success. With the boom of Florida long over (Florida was booming and money flowing when Bush was governor) and the old folks (who are who carries it for Republicans) dying off and not being replaced with more snowbirds, Florida is unpredictable and impossible to calculate. Bush likely would have an edge over Romney in Florida, but it not a certain win.

Of course, the other question isn't who most likely would win, but who should? Personally, I strongly favor Romney over Bush for many reasons, plus do not like the dynasty effect. I think Jeb Bush is under educated (BA only in Latin studies versus Law and MBA for Romney), and Jeb Bush life is one of riding coattails.

His big plus of course is his Latino wife and his speaking Spanish. That one is hard to figure. Dukakis also spoke Spanish, but Dukakis proved to be a weak sister in general as a candidate. While past elections can give clues, each election is unique.

There are, of course, unknowns too. Jeb Bush has not been thru the gauntlet of a presidential election so it not experienced with the potential gaff mine field. Romney's been thru it and learn his lessons the hard way. Romney now can probably deliver his lines in his sleep - and learned never, ever, ever go off script.

The media, though, may decide not to allow Romney to be credible and is loudly declaring Bush is. At the start, any candidate is ONLY as credible as the media says the candidate is.
 
joko104 said:
I understand your math. Not going state by state, in close states there could be an anti "Bush" enough to swing it blue. It isn't certain Bush would carry Florida just because of past success. With the boom of Florida long over (Florida was booming and money flowing when Bush was governor) and the old folks (who are who carries it for Republicans) dying off and not being replaced with more snowbirds, Florida is unpredictable and impossible to calculate. Bush likely would have an edge over Romney in Florida, but it not a certain win.

Of course, the other question isn't who most likely would win, but who should? Personally, I strongly favor Romney over Bush for many reasons, plus do not like the dynasty effect. I think Jeb Bush is under educated (BA only in Latin studies versus Law and MBA for Romney), and Jeb Bush life is one of riding coattails.

His big plus of course is his Latino wife and his speaking Spanish. That one is hard to figure. Dukakis also spoke Spanish, but Dukakis proved to be a weak sister in general as a candidate. While past elections can give clues, each election is unique.

There are, of course, unknowns too. Jeb Bush has not been thru the gauntlet of a presidential election so it not experienced with the potential gaff mine field. Romney's been thru it and learn his lessons the hard way. Romney now can probably deliver his lines in his sleep - and learned never, ever, ever go off script.

The media, though, may decide not to allow Romney to be credible and is loudly declaring Bush is. At the start, any candidate is ONLY as credible as the media says the candidate is.
Click to expand...

When I look at the candidates, I pretty much assume that they will receive 90% of the base vote in any particular state. Call it a rule of thumb. Then I look at favorable/unfavorable ratings of the candidates among independents. It is independents that any Republican candidate must secure around 54% of to win nationally due to the Democrats larger base. Romney's ratings among independents is 43/44 a negative 1, Bush's is 33/32 plus 1. Not much difference, none really when one considers the margin of error. But with Romney the electorate mind is pretty much made up. He really has no room to improve, but the opposite is true also. With Bush there still is 34% undecided/don't know enough. He can either really improve his standing among the independents a whole lot or he can really fall off the cliff. But the possibility exists for improvement whereas Romney, a known quantity there really is none.

Now Clinton stands at 51/43, only Bush has a chance of matching hers. Romney is basically standing close to where he was in November of 2012 when he was 44/46 and Obama at 51/47.

Now having said all of this, this far out none of the above means a thing. But it does show you where things stands today especially among the independents.


As for close races in 2012 there were only 4, Obama won Florida by 0.88%, Ohio 2.98% and Virginia by 3.87%, Romney won North Carolina by 2.04%. I have no doubt Bush would erase that less than 1% margin and win Florida, North Carolina would be the only state that was close that could turn blue, even so Bush would get 29 EV from Florida while losing 15 from North Carolina.
 
Perotista said:
When I look at the candidates, I pretty much assume that they will receive 90% of the base vote in any particular state. Call it a rule of thumb. Then I look at favorable/unfavorable ratings of the candidates among independents. It is independents that any Republican candidate must secure around 54% of to win nationally due to the Democrats larger base. Romney's ratings among independents is 43/44 a negative 1, Bush's is 33/32 plus 1. Not much difference, none really when one considers the margin of error. But with Romney the electorate mind is pretty much made up. He really has no room to improve, but the opposite is true also. With Bush there still is 34% undecided/don't know enough. He can either really improve his standing among the independents a whole lot or he can really fall off the cliff. But the possibility exists for improvement whereas Romney, a known quantity there really is none.

Now Clinton stands at 51/43, only Bush has a chance of matching hers. Romney is basically standing close to where he was in November of 2012 when he was 44/46 and Obama at 51/47.

Now having said all of this, this far out none of the above means a thing. But it does show you where things stands today especially among the independents.


As for close races in 2012 there were only 4, Obama won Florida by 0.88%, Ohio 2.98% and Virginia by 3.87%, Romney won North Carolina by 2.04%. I have no doubt Bush would erase that less than 1% margin and win Florida, North Carolina would be the only state that was close that could turn blue, even so Bush would get 29 EV from Florida while losing 15 from North Carolina.
Click to expand...

Ok, based upon your assumptions that no one who didn't vote for Romney last time would vote him this time, and your assumption that lots of people who in polls say they wouldn't vote for Jeb Bush but actually they are lying and throwing out polls you don't like - yeah, you can come up with your being certain Bush would win. Of course, that basis of analysis is worthless, isn't it?
 
Analysis is simple.

Clinton is a positive name.

Bush a negative one.

There has already been a Clinton v Bush showdown and Bush lost.

Every poll shows Hillary Clinton would beat Jeb Bush - BADLY.

Electing Hillary would be a FIRST. The media and people like FIRSTs. Jeb Bush would be a 3 layer hand-me-down - disgusting to many people.

The women's vote is MASSIVELY larger than the Latino vote. Hillary is a woman. Bush is a man.

It'd be a slaughter against Jeb Bush. The analysis of "but he speaks Spanish and is from Florida" is simplistic and wrongheaded cherry picking.
 
joko104 said:
Ok, based upon your assumptions that no one who didn't vote for Romney last time would vote him this time, and your assumption that lots of people who in polls say they wouldn't vote for Jeb Bush but actually they are lying and throwing out polls you don't like - yeah, you can come up with your being certain Bush would win. Of course, that basis of analysis is worthless, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Not really, I am only going on the basis Bush would win Florida and the polls there back that up. No polling on Romney. It is called the favorite son approach. Here you can look at the general election match ups:

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Presidential Race

Now these are just the popular vote totals as polls go. Again all they do is give one a feeling of where things stand now and a bunch of what ifs. Notice Romney is not included. But the above does not give you the electoral count.
 
if those are my only two choices....i am in deep deep trouble
 
NIMBY said:
Rand Paul hits Jeb Bush on Common Core.
Says it will be very very difficult for Jeb to run in the primaries .
Click to expand...

That and immigration are the two biggest hits against Jeb Bush in the primary.
 
Perotista said:
Not really, I am only going on the basis Bush would win Florida and the polls there back that up. No polling on Romney. It is called the favorite son approach. Here you can look at the general election match ups:

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Presidential Race

Now these are just the popular vote totals as polls go. Again all they do is give one a feeling of where things stand now and a bunch of what ifs. Notice Romney is not included. But the above does not give you the electoral count.
Click to expand...

It is notable Romney is off the list, since he polls nearly double Bush and even more over anyone else among Republicans.

The establishment does not want another Romney run. Romney can be independently minded - and nothing is more repulsive that having a president that might not do what Wall Street, the DC power-crats, the One Worlders and the hawks want.

They all win if the general election is between Bush and Hillary no matter how it turns out. There is no war either would say no to, nothing Wall Street wants they won't get, no Patriot Act provisions they can't have, and no limits to federal power agencies wants.
 
Well, as the powers that be seem to be setting this up as a Bush v. Romney/Clinton v. Warren showdown and if I had to pick the winners I'd say Bush/Clinton who are for all intents and purposes negligible in their differences economically. Bush would accomplish much of nothing but perhaps staving off the social degenerates while Clinton would make strides in taking away more personal liberties of Americans in the "fly over states" and additional social engineering.

Romney's greatest asset along with Warren's is that they are not Bush or Clinton, respectively.

Unfortunately those are liabilities to the power players and we'll more than likely, major revelations aside see this match up should all parties follow through and throw their names in the hat.

In any case, we lose.
 
joko104 said:
It is notable Romney is off the list, since he polls nearly double Bush and even more over anyone else among Republicans.

The establishment does not want another Romney run. Romney can be independently minded - and nothing is more repulsive that having a president that might not do what Wall Street, the DC power-crats, the One Worlders and the hawks want.

They all win if the general election is between Bush and Hillary no matter how it turns out. There is no war either would say no to, nothing Wall Street wants they won't get, no Patriot Act provisions they can't have, and no limits to federal power agencies wants.
Click to expand...

If that is how you feel, it really surprises me you would be for Romney. I seen very little difference between him, G.W. Bush, Obama and Hillary. Strange. Seems to me you would be more of a Paul guy.
 
Perotista said:
If that is how you feel, it really surprises me you would be for Romney. I seen very little difference between him, G.W. Bush, Obama and Hillary. Strange. Seems to me you would be more of a Paul guy.
Click to expand...

I totally despised Ron Paul. I liked his son's independent streak, though he's racing to be mainstream.

It is all opinion for anyone. While Romney would be a moderate, not conservative, and I don't like the social agenda of the right overall - and despite his flipflops - he is a brilliant man, his education shows it, and at least on a personal level he was loyal to the behavior rules of his religion - not easy to do. In short, I think there is a threshold to how corrupt he would be willing to be. I think he would have good motives.

Unlike Clinton and DEFINITELY unlike Bush, there is nothing in his record of using government position for his own personal wealthy building - which is the Bush family heritage, and very much including Jeb Bush for which his initial wealth came by essentially theft of government funds via dealings with racketeers and fraudsters - many who went to prison. I believe Jeb Bush has no integrity whatsoever, is a thief and a big government insider in the worst possible ways.

In my view, Jeb Bush is immoral trash, a person's whose entire resume is of political, institutional and financial corruption, theft and scams. Hillary? Hillary is a coattail rider, a hothead, and a big deal by declaring herself to be one. Romney? Romney was a businessman in the business of making money. He proved he is an excellent organizer over the Olympics and he proved he could function as governor with a solidly Democratic legislature - something neither Bush nor Clinton have ANY experience at.

Candidly, what Hillary Clinton says and Jeb Bush says is worthless. They'll say anything, anything at all. While Romney was not consistent either, his personal life ethics of his own personal behavior seem basically perfect - where Jeb Bush's is despicable and Hillary's is, at best, lacking.

Ultimately, when push comes to shove I believe Romney's inclination would be to try to figure what is the right thing to do. Hillary would try to think of what is the enlightened thing to say. Jeb Bush's only consideration would be "what's in this for me?" That's how I feel about it.
 
joko104 said:
I totally despised Ron Paul. I liked his son's independent streak, though he's racing to be mainstream.

It is all opinion for anyone. While Romney would be a moderate, not conservative, and I don't like the social agenda of the right overall - and despite his flipflops - he is a brilliant man, his education shows it, and at least on a personal level he was loyal to the behavior rules of his religion - not easy to do. In short, I think there is a threshold to how corrupt he would be willing to be. I think he would have good motives.

Unlike Clinton and DEFINITELY unlike Bush, there is nothing in his record of using government position for his own personal wealthy building - which is the Bush family heritage, and very much including Jeb Bush for which his initial wealth came by essentially theft of government funds via dealings with racketeers and fraudsters - many who went to prison. I believe Jeb Bush has no integrity whatsoever, is a thief and a big government insider in the worst possible ways.

In my view, Jeb Bush is immoral trash, a person's whose entire resume is of political, institutional and financial corruption, theft and scams. Hillary? Hillary is a coattail rider, a hothead, and a big deal by declaring herself to be one. Romney? Romney was a businessman in the business of making money. He proved he is an excellent organizer over the Olympics and he proved he could function as governor with a solidly Democratic legislature - something neither Bush nor Clinton have ANY experience at.

Candidly, what Hillary Clinton says and Jeb Bush says is worthless. They'll say anything, anything at all. While Romney was not consistent either, his personal life ethics of his own personal behavior seem basically perfect - where Jeb Bush's is despicable and Hillary's is, at best, lacking.

Ultimately, when push comes to shove I believe Romney's inclination would be to try to figure what is the right thing to do. Hillary would try to think of what is the enlightened thing to say. Jeb Bush's only consideration would be "what's in this for me?" That's how I feel about it.
Click to expand...

that is laying it all out their, I will give you credit for that. I think the last time I really believed in a man running for president was Ross Perot. Before that you would have to go back to Goldwater. Both lost, trounced. But their ideas lived on. Perhaps I have become just an old cynic, one who has given up on people, candidates and now just concentrate on who has the best chance of winning.

You are refreshing,
 
Perotista said:
that is laying it all out their, I will give you credit for that. I think the last time I really believed in a man running for president was Ross Perot. Before that you would have to go back to Goldwater. Both lost, trounced. But their ideas lived on. Perhaps I have become just an old cynic, one who has given up on people, candidates and now just concentrate on who has the best chance of winning.

You are refreshing,
Click to expand...

I do think people have just given up. If you point out extreme lies by a politician what responses do you see? 1.) Oh yeah, well the other guy did it to so it doesn't matter or 2.) So what, all politicians lie.

To me, the question has come down to if all the chips are down or when the true great moments of decision come, what will the person do? What will motivate the person? Will the person try to do "the right thing" - even if against the person's self interests?

From what I've read and seen (not much), Ross Perot was a bit of a ego centric guy, but brilliant. Goldwater may have been the last old school conservative - willing to say he's not going to let the religious rightwing tell him what to do, that government should just stay the hell out of people's lives, while the USA should have a strong defense we shouldn't be in wars and conflicts all over the world, and people should be responsible for their own lives rather than the government being their caretakers.

The media lied horrifically about him - and I read later after the election some even apologized to him. LBJ promised he would not go to war in Vietnam, while declaring Goldwater would start WWIII, and then LBJ put 500,000 troops in Vietnam. And Republicans mostly sided with him on it.

There are no H Ross Perots or Barry Goldwaters to even hope for anymore, is there? Its just who has the $$, the insider contacts, best delivers speeches from the best speech writers, and basically tells the most convincing lies making the most promises of free stuff.

Sad, really. If one looks at the whole history of the USA and the original ideology behind it? That's all gone.
 
joko104 said:
I do think people have just given up. If you point out extreme lies by a politician what responses do you see? 1.) Oh yeah, well the other guy did it to so it doesn't matter or 2.) So what, all politicians lie.

To me, the question has come down to if all the chips are down or when the true great moments of decision come, what will the person do? What will motivate the person? Will the person try to do "the right thing" - even if against the person's self interests?

From what I've read and seen (not much), Ross Perot was a bit of a ego centric guy, but brilliant. Goldwater may have been the last old school conservative - willing to say he's not going to let the religious rightwing tell him what to do, that government should just stay the hell out of people's lives, while the USA should have a strong defense we shouldn't be in wars and conflicts all over the world, and people should be responsible for their own lives rather than the government being their caretakers.

The media lied horrifically about him - and I read later after the election some even apologized to him. LBJ promised he would not go to war in Vietnam, while declaring Goldwater would start WWIII, and then LBJ put 500,000 troops in Vietnam. And Republicans mostly sided with him on it.

There are no H Ross Perots or Barry Goldwaters to even hope for anymore, is there? Its just who has the $$, the insider contacts, best delivers speeches from the best speech writers, and basically tells the most convincing lies making the most promises of free stuff.

Sad, really. If one looks at the whole history of the USA and the original ideology behind it? That's all gone.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is, it all just seems to be memories and all gone. Let me tell you how I first came to know of Ross Perot if you don’t mind. It was Christmas of 1969, I was stationed in Vientiane Laos. This little fellow, Perot had been trying for a couple of months to get the North Vietnamese to accept some Christmas presents for our POW’s in Hanoi. He flew into Vientiane on a 707 full of Christmas gifts. He chose Vientiane because it has both a North Vietnamese Embassy and an American one. He walked right up to the North Vietnamese Embassy, he was stopped by their guard. Perot demanded to speak to the North Vietnamese Ambassador in order to try to make him accept the Christmas Presents. The North Vietnamese Ambassador wouldn’t come out and talk to him and in the end Perot left Vientiane with the same load of Christmas Presents he had brought. He was one feisty little fellow and he gained my respects that day so many years ago.

You’re right about Goldwater too. I remember LBJ saying that if you voted for Goldwater that our American boys would be involved in a War in Southeast Asia. He was right, I voted for Goldwater and sure enough our American boy went to war in Vietnam, all over Southeast Asia in fact. I could tell you more, but you seem pretty much up on him. His slogan, “In your heart you know he is right.” He most certainly was.
 
Perotista said:
Yeah it is, it all just seems to be memories and all gone. Let me tell you how I first came to know of Ross Perot if you don’t mind. It was Christmas of 1969, I was stationed in Vientiane Laos. This little fellow, Perot had been trying for a couple of months to get the North Vietnamese to accept some Christmas presents for our POW’s in Hanoi. He flew into Vientiane on a 707 full of Christmas gifts. He chose Vientiane because it has both a North Vietnamese Embassy and an American one. He walked right up to the North Vietnamese Embassy, he was stopped by their guard. Perot demanded to speak to the North Vietnamese Ambassador in order to try to make him accept the Christmas Presents. The North Vietnamese Ambassador wouldn’t come out and talk to him and in the end Perot left Vientiane with the same load of Christmas Presents he had brought. He was one feisty little fellow and he gained my respects that day so many years ago.

You’re right about Goldwater too. I remember LBJ saying that if you voted for Goldwater that our American boys would be involved in a War in Southeast Asia. He was right, I voted for Goldwater and sure enough our American boy went to war in Vietnam, all over Southeast Asia in fact. I could tell you more, but you seem pretty much up on him. His slogan, “In your heart you know he is right.” He most certainly was.
Click to expand...

I try to learn of history. It tells us how we got to where we are and so much more.
 
joko104 said:
I try to learn of history. It tells us how we got to where we are and so much more.
Click to expand...

And like the old adage goes: Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat its same mistakes.
 
Scott walker will be the GOP's presidential nominee. Watch
 
This poll was messed with by a Hillary junkie like the Jeb v. Hillary poll. There is no limit to how many times a person can vote. The polls should all be public for this reason. Any poll that isn't public isn't a poll at all. Maybe, if possible, only public polls could be allowed to be posted.
 
Do I want a fungus riddled, decaying douchebag or do I want a vomit in a brown paperbag for lunch?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom