Should Romney run for President again in 2016? Why or why not? Who should be his

1. 70

   Conservative Ladyposted 10 years ago

   Should Romney run for President again in 2016? Why or why not? Who should be his running mate?

   replyreport
2. 61

   cjhunsingerposted 10 years ago

   Romney and Carson in 2016, what a pleasant thought.
   Perhaps, there are reasons why Romney should not be elected president. He is successful, obviously not a good quality. He has a long and successful marriage, obviously not a good quality. He believes in the US Constitution, definitely not a good quality in a President. He has a thorough understanding of business, both domestic and international, a definite weak point in his resume. His understanding of geo-political problems is superior, obviously something that needs improvement. He believes in the sovereignty of America, but this is a stumbling block to a globalist philosophy. He hates women, which is obvious in the treatment of his wife and daughters. He loathes the poor and this too, is obvious in the amount of  money he gives to charities.
   The man has experience in government and in the pulling together of opposing sides, but, as we know, one term office holders who have no experience of success at anything, other than agitation are better suited.
   This man is obviously not qualified to be President, as he always vacations with his wife, rarely plays golf, if at all and he may honor the oath of office  honor and protect the Constitution.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      teamrnposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Junk, Hilary Clinton 40 years as Secy of State? HER achievements were the question, not Mitt Romney's achievements. What 'issues' does MR have as governor?

      replyreport
   2. 70

      dashingscorpioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      None of those things will keep him from getting elected. Reagan and both Bushes got elected president having the same stances. No matter who wins an election 49% of the voters will be unhappy. If people like and believe you they'll vote for you..

      replyreport
3. 80

   lovemychrisposted 10 years ago

   For gods sakes, he keeps money in various overseas banks to avoid paying taxes to the country he wants to run? Or I should say, would let Bibi and Adelson run. As if they don't already. Corporate criminal for prez? What have we come to?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      love--Your accusations are meaningless, but since you stated them--show the evidence. Also show proof of the Bibi accusations and if you can't your argument is a puff of bad air.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      teamrnposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Dear Love. Read a little. There are laws and Mitt Romney, like Debbie Wasserman Schultz is well w/in the law in taking advantage of tax loopholes. Is she a corporate criminal, too?

      replyreport
   3. 70

      The Frog Princeposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      And your point is?  Since you avoid paying taxes yourself look in the mirror.  HELLO?  What we've come to is letting low information voters elect idiots like Obama as the chief executive officer of this nation when he can't run aa lemonade stand.

      replyreport
4. 77

   junksellerposted 10 years ago

   The Republicans have an extremely difficult challenge in 2016. The electoral map just doesn't favor them. Winning will almost certainly require flipping either Florida or Ohio, and ideally both. Those are the two 'easiest' big states to pull back in their favor, but even with those two, they are still 17 votes short. The only single state within reach big enough to cover that gap is Pennsylvania. Alternatively they could win 2 of the 3 of Michigan, Wisconsin, or Minnesota. None of those are easy pulls.
   
   Romney lost all of those states and I don't see why the vote would turn out any differently in 2016 for him. If his opponent is Clinton, then the white male vote will probably stay the same, but the white female vote could very well shift towards Clinton. Since the Midwest has a high white vote, that makes the Republican task even more difficult.
   
   I just can't see any reason to run Romney. He played his hand and lost badly against a relatively weak opponent and nothing has really changed all that much.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      teamrnposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not a huge believer in strategy/geography as the only reason you get elected. Clinton may have the geography, but she has no accomplishments and record to run on. Good-sounding promises got America nothing; now, they want A RECORD of achievement.

      replyreport
   2. 77

      junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Lawyer, First lady, Senator, Secretary of State for 40 years. Like her or not, that is a solid resume. As to record of achievement, Romney has some issues with his governor experience. Someone like Kasich or Walker works better in that regard, IMO.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      teamrnposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Americans have seen charismatic; it gets us CAMELOT, BUT it also gave us WHAT WE'VE GOT. Who's rule is "it takes charisma?" What Ben Carson lacks in charisma, he makes up for in honesty, ideals, morals things that stand the test of time.

      replyreport
   4. 70

      dashingscorpioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      2016 will be interesting for a couple of reasons. If the stock market continues to break records, housing prices rebound, interest rates remain low then the economy won't be the issue like it was in 2008. Rarely has one party held office 3 terms

      replyreport
   5. 61

      cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      dashing--Stocks are up because the Fed is pumping $70 billion a month into it-Obamas buddies. We are $18 trillion in debt. 110 million people on welfare. 47 million in poverty and on food stamps, The standard of living&has diminished .

      replyreport
   6. 60

      teamrnposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      dashing, "Rarely has one party held office 3 terms" I don't often make political predictions, but I don't foresee that happening. I don't foresee a blowout, but they won't hold executive, or legislative majority. Lame duck party comes to mind.

      replyreport
   7. 77

      junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Parties don't hold power for that long because the losing party generally learns from their mistakes. That isn't the case with the current GOP.

      replyreport
   8. 70

      dashingscorpioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      cjhunsinger, The average voter isn't going to care why their 401k is doing well. Most of those people on food stamps/welfare do not see the Republican party as the answer. George HW Bush was the last one party 3 term president. It's a rarity!

      replyreport
   9. 60

      teamrnposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      401 K: Did I mention something about that?"Most of those people on food stamps/welfare do not see the Republican party as the answer." Now the see that Dem party doesn't deliver, either. G. H.W Bush was the last 3 term POTUS? Facts? He served 1 term.

      replyreport
   10. 77

       junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       G.H.W. Bush was the last president to serve a third term by the same party in a row, Reagan serving the first two, is what I think was meant.

       replyreport
   11. 70

       dashingscorpioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       junkseller you are corrrect! That is what I was I was referring to (one party) being in office for 3 terms. I had to cut it short in order to include the other part of my statement. People often want to give the other party a try after 8 years.

       replyreport
5. 60

   teamrnposted 10 years ago

   Should Mitt Romney run? Mitt Romney is well-equipped to run this country's domestic and foreign policy as well as be its CEO. It is Mitt Romney's decision, I hope he'll make it, but I think he must make it with the understanding that if he wins the primary, THE PARTY MUST BACK HIM.
   
   The Republican party shouldn't 'run' Romney. Mitt Romney's running or not running is for Mitt Romney and the Republican Party to decide. No us. "He played his hand and lost badly against a relatively weak opponent" As far as his having lost to a weak incumbent; yes he did. But that weak incumbent had minions of ill-informed, "my-man-walks' on-water-and-can't-do-any-wrong" supporters, many of whom have since jumped ship.
   
   The Republican party erred in having way too long a primary season and allowing themselves to become fractionated by allegations fronted by the main stream media. The Republican party's business is just that: the Republican parties' business, not that of MSNBC. In stead of working to please their base so hard, to advance the Republican agenda, the GOP needs to decide its platform and throw its FULL weight behind the candidate which best embraces that platform. None of this milquetoast endorsement. Back their candidate fully, or don't run him.
   
   I just read someone's comments about Mitt Romney having off-shore bank accounts as a tax haven. HELLO? We have such horrible laws that many people, including Debbie W-S, have off-shore and or Swiss accounts. Do you blame a businessperson such as W-S or Romney from taking advantage of loop-holes in our laws? It's not Mitt Romney alone. Pot shot.
   
   As far as who should be his running mate (Mitt Romney's), I'm not sure. Ben Carson is a good thought, but I think he might be too much of idea man and better suited for an advisory capacity. We don't need a politician/baby kisser for executive office, but we need SOME political experience. We've seen that no political experience is disastrous.
   
   One thing though: I don't see skeletons in Ben Carson's closet and I don't think he'd squander opportunity after opportunity to advance the cause of the black man like our POTUS has.
   
   Romney has all the political experience that it takes, but it does require some (like being raised in politics and having been governor himself and business success ). We passed on a very good man in 2012 and it would behoove ALL Americans who didn't support him to seriously give some thought to: WHY. We'll be lucky to get that back again.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The "ill-informed" people who saw Obama as some sort of messiah and have now jumped ship are mythical voters. They don't exist and are a perfect example of the GOP's blinders, which makes them winning almost an impossibility. They just don't get it.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      teamrnposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      "ill-informed...messiah... have now jumped ship... mythical voters." How can people be mythical? I know them, They breathe, and said they 'goofed.'  They were  2008 BO supporters, who weren't supporters in 2012. How can these people be mythical?

      replyreport
   3. 77

      junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      There may be handfuls, not masses, but the bigger myth element is the notion that they jumped the ship rather then they threw him overboard. Dissatisfaction with Obama in no way means satisfaction with the GOP.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      teamrnposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that dissatisfaction isn't satisfaction. But it is reason to hide from all association w/ BO and he happens to represent a necessary association.

      replyreport
   5. 61

      cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      teamrn--Dr. Carson seems to be saintly in his history and hopefully he will have an impact. How about Perry and Carson. Carson is a must, but lacks dynamics.

      replyreport
   6. 70

      dashingscorpioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Truth be told every candidate has "my-man-walks' on-water-and-can't-do-any-wrong" supporters". In fact some people strictly vote according to political party. Ben Carson lacks the "it factor". One must have charisma/energy to get elected today.

      replyreport
   7. 60

      teamrnposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Dashing, I agree, but BO seems to have more than his share. They are blind; even to fact that when others are jumping a sinking ship, they grab the slotted spoon to bail the sinking ship. They will NEVER admit they might have goofed, might be wrong.

      replyreport
   8. 70

      dashingscorpioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      teamrn , Those people still see BO as "the lessor of two evils". While they may not be happy with what they got they don't believe the other candidate/party would have done better to address (their) interests. Both the exec/congress have to work.

      replyreport
   9. 60

      teamrnposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Dashing, those people will be unhappy with anything BUT BO. There are times when survival of the country is best put above their interests and when they put aside their personal 'gimmes,' they will realize that what they have is worth working towards

      replyreport
   10. 70

       dashingscorpioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       teamrn, It's not just BO. These people will be voting for Hilary or whomever is the Democrat candidate! The Democrats have positioned themselves in their minds as being "the champions" of women, the poor, minorities, the sick, and the elderly.

       replyreport
   11. 60

       teamrnposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Dems have positioned IN THER MINDS, that they're the champions.... Key words: "iIN THEIR MINDS..." Dems and Repubs are humans: Do humans disregard humanity?

       replyreport
   12. 70

       dashingscorpioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       teamrn, I personally believe (both parties) want safe neighborhoods, jobs, prosperity, and good education for their children. The disagreement is in how to achieve it. My point is people vote according to who is more in line with their approach.

       replyreport
   13. 60

       teamrnposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Dashing, my point is the same (diff strokes for diff folks...). But individuals should EDUCATE themselves and arm themselves with FACTS before they vote. "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people " Jefferson

       replyreport
6. 70

   dashingscorpioposted 10 years ago

   The biggest challenge for Romney will be the beating and bruising primary he'd endure from other Republicans. The "in battle" between the "Tea Party" Republicans VS traditional and moderate Republicans will be even more fierce in 2016.
   They're going to attack him for inventing Romney-Care in MA and not being conservative enough.
   Even if he survived that he'd have to address the "47%" comment again, his claim that Jeep was closing it's plants in Ohio and other things said in front of cameras.
   Lastly you really cannot ignore the demographics of the voting people along with the electoral college map. Certain states rarely go from blue to red or vice versa. Most people are going to vote based upon their pocketbook and the perception of how the candidate agrees/disagrees with their personal opinion about things, and last but not least what their (party's platform) is for the vision the country.
   Hot button issues such as pro-life/choice, planned parenthood, illegal immigration, minimum wage, lack of a jobs bill are all things that will need to be addressed during a run for president.
   Generally speaking these days in order to win the Republican primary the candidate is going to have to capitulate to the extreme right and those statements will be used against them during the (general election) by the Democrats. Simply calling for more tax cuts and less government regulations is not going win over a large percentage of Independents, conservative Democrats, women, and the growing (legal) Hispanic voters. More than two thirds of Latino voters chose President Barack Obama. When Romney said he would veto the Dream Act he lost their vote.
   My prediction is Hilary Clinton would beat Romney not because of any of (her) achievements but because she will have the guidance of Bill Clinton who is (very popular) across the country despite being impeached. Some will vote for her because she is a woman but most will see it as electing (the Clintons) as a couple.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      dashing--Not at all an unreasonable scenario. I, think it speaks poorly of the American people however. How would you define, the extreme right' and is it that they want?

      replyreport
   2. 70

      dashingscorpioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      In today's political climate extreme in both parties is anyone who is not willing to "compromise" in order get the nation past it's big problems. Anyone who does compromise is viewed as traitor. "Party loyalty" is more important than the nation.

      replyreport
   3. 61

      cjhunsingerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      dashing--If I hold to a particular view, the Constitution, and you hold a world view minus the Constitution; what is there to compromise? That a women is pregnant, is abortion a compromise?

      replyreport
   4. 60

      teamrnposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Not all Americans have a love affair with Bill Clinton's morals, though I agree,; he'll feed her advice and we won't know WHO is running. We've got Branjolina, why not Bilary? Not just any woman, but a GOOD woman and it is not Hilary. Liddy. Dole.

      replyreport
   5. 70

      dashingscorpioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      cjhunsinger, No one wins or loses an election based upon being pro-life or pro-choice. However if one states they want to cut social security benefits, or not raise the minimum wage these are "pocketbook issues". People may just dislike candidates

      replyreport
   6. 60

      teamrnposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      ""Party loyalty" is more important than the nation." You speak in such a way as "I HAVE THE TRUTH" and anyone who doesn't share your view is wrong. Also, there are time that the nation is more important than a party and this is one of those times.

      replyreport
   7. 70

      dashingscorpioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      teamrn, I don't have the answers! I'm just giving my opinion of what I have observed like everyone else does on HP. I believe the nation is always more important than the party! It's people within these parties that place loyalty above all else.

      replyreport