Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XII

[hippie_hunter]

Overall, Romney certainly is a weak candidate. Smart, but weak. If Obama didn't have such a bad hand of cards, he would easily crush Romney.

 

[Matt]

I still think Romney is a very weak candidate. President Obama can argue that the economy is getting better and that things are, in fact, improving. It might be incredibly slow progress, but it is still progress.

While you are right that Romney is a weak candidate, so is Obama because this isn't 2008 anymore and he actually has a record to run on this time (and a weak one at that). Obama is probably the most beatable sitting president since Carter (and I include H.W. Bush because if you take Perot out of the equation, he kills Clinton, his loss was almost a fluke). Romney is weak, but Obama is beatable. Even by a weak candidate.

As for your other point, Obama can argue whatever he'd like but it'll make him look worse. For him to go on stage and say, "It's getting better, it is just slow and there's nothing I can do about that," when the unemployment rate is between 8-10 % and people are paying out of their asses for gas would come across as INCREDIBLY out of touch.

Obama needs to accept that the economy is still terrible for the average Joe (no matter what the DOW and NASDAQ say....they are just meaningless numbers to most Americans), andnot blame Bush, not blame Republicans but just own up and try to present the case that what he has done is helping it and that Romney will undo any progress that has been made and set it right back on the track it was on.

Like I said, Obama is beatable right now. God help him if his healthcare law gets overturned. Being as no one cares about foreign policy at the moment (which means Bin Laden and Gaddafi equate to jack ****), if Obamacare gets overturned, Obama's entire platform will have to consist of asking America for a mulligan. When you factor in that Romney will no longer have to campaign on repealing Obamacare (which means it can't really be used against him), that will spell bad news for Obama.

 

[Matt]

Overall, Romney certainly is a weak candidate. Smart, but weak. If Obama didn't have such a bad hand of cards, he would easily crush Romney.

And there's the rub. Romney is a weak candidate, but like I said, Obama is a weak incumbent. Weaker than H.W. Bush who lost primarily due to Perot. Obama's probably the weakest incumbent since Carter.

I think that Obama will ultimately win, because I think he will take Ohio, PA and Florida (unless Romney picks Ridge ) but it is going to be a close one. Americans aren't happy with Obama, he is beatable. Any competent Republican would probably beat him. It is really too bad that the Republicans decided not to run any this time around.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I personally think that Romney will come out on top in Florida. I think it's down to Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Colorado.

 

[Matt]

I personally think that Romney will come out on top in Florida. I think it's down to Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Colorado.

I just think Romney is too disconnected from Latino voters to take Florida. And every time he makes a play to win them over, the disconnect grows it seems.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I just think Romney is too disconnected from Latino voters to take Florida. And every time he makes a play to win them over, the disconnect grows it seems.

But much of Florida's Latino vote are Cubans which are a reliable Republican voting bloc.

Romney's Latino problem is going to be more of a factor in states like Colorado and Nevada.

 

[Chris B]

The thing is, when you look at the polls, Obama is doing pretty good right now despite being such a vulnerable incumbent on the surface.

Granted, the election is over six months away and a lot can happen until then, but I think baring some catastrophe, he'll get another term.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The thing is, when you look at the polls, Obama is doing pretty good right now despite being such a vulnerable incumbent on the surface.

Not really. An incumbent shouldn't be having polls where the challenger is in a statistical tie, an actual tie, or winning. His RCP Average is less than 4% and he almost never goes above 50% in any poll. Especially considering how bad the primary process hurt the GOP candidates.

 

[Chris B]

Not really. An incumbent shouldn't be having polls where the challenger is in a statistical tie, an actual tie, or winning. His RCP Average is less than 4% and he almost never goes above 50% in any poll. Especially considering how bad the primary process hurt the GOP candidates.

I'll concede that his lead is often within the margin of error in a lot of polls. Still, it's not like Romney is blowing him out of the water either.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I'll concede that his lead is often within the margin of error in a lot of polls. Still, it's not like Romney is blowing him out of the water either.

You're right that Romney isn't blowing him out of the water, but look at this from a historical perspective, at this point of the race incumbents like Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush held comfortable leads over Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, and they still lost by comfortable margins. Consider how much of a weak candidate Romney is and Obama does not have a comfortable lead over him is not a good sign at all. Consider the absolute lunacy that were the GOP primaries and Obama does not have a comfortable lead developed by that clown show is possibly one of the worst signs for him possible.

For an incumbent, Obama should be doing much, much better.

 

[Matt]

If Obama wins re-election, he should send fruit baskets or something as a thank you to Gingrich and Santorum. If Romney took the nomination after New Hampshire, Obama's presidency would be in serious jeopardy. Instead Romney had to go further and further right, deal with manufactured issues like the GOP's war on women, etc. It made him an even weaker candidate than he already was.

So yeah, should Obama win, he owes those two gentlemen quite a bit.

 

[SV Fan]

You're right that Romney isn't blowing him out of the water, but look at this from a historical perspective, at this point of the race incumbents like Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush held comfortable leads over Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, and they still lost by comfortable margins. Consider how much of a weak candidate Romney is and Obama does not have a comfortable lead over him is not a good sign at all. Consider the absolute lunacy that were the GOP primaries and Obama does not have a comfortable lead developed by that clown show is possibly one of the worst signs for him possible.

For an incumbent, Obama should be doing much, much better.

This was from May 20, 2004

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120492,00.html

The sharp national divide continues on many topics, but may best be illustrated with the current presidential horse race numbers. If the election were held today, the head-to-head matchup between President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry shows the candidates would be tied at 42 percent each. Earlier this month Bush was at 44 percent and Kerry 41 percent.

Bush won even though they were stastically even.

In the case of Mitt Romney, I really need he thinks to drop the Obama sucks, i will do better speeches, at some point most people will realize that "i can do better" is a rather baseless statement that doesn't really say much. I think people want to hear what he would do to make things better

 

[Handsome Rob]

This was from May 20, 2004

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120492,00.html

Bush won even though they were stastically even.

In the case of Mitt Romney, I really need he thinks to drop the Obama sucks, i will do better speeches, at some point most people will realize that "i can do better" is a rather baseless statement that doesn't really say much. I think people want to hear what he would do to make things better

No less baseless than "hope" and "change." I do agree with you--Romney (and any Presidential candidate) should be more willing to go into specifics and not just come up with generalities that make for good soundbites. "I can do better" is meaningless without the specifics to back it up.

Although, you see how many swooned over Obama and put him in office. So, superficial, meaningless fluff wins over a lot of sheep--that's why they do it.

 

[hippie_hunter]

This was from May 20, 2004

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120492,00.html

Bush won even though they were stastically even.

In the case of Mitt Romney, I really need he thinks to drop the Obama sucks, i will do better speeches, at some point most people will realize that "i can do better" is a rather baseless statement that doesn't really say much. I think people want to hear what he would do to make things better

Bush was also a very weak incumbent. If the economy were slightly crappier, I am in the firm belief that he would have lost to John Kerry.

 

[Marx]

I still maintain that Mitt Romney is the republican version of John Kerry.

 

[Matt]

And because you want to believe that you ignore that Kerry could've beat Bush if not for 9/11 and the fact that we were at the beginning of a recession rather than in the midst of one. Things didn't really get bad until early 2006.

 

[Matt]

Bush was also a very weak incumbent. If the economy were slightly crappier, I am in the firm belief that he would have lost to John Kerry.

I also think the war played a role. Most did not realize how bad things were until late 2005/early 2006 and Americans tend to be very reluctant to change commander-in-chief during war time unless things get REALLY bad.

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]379663[/split]

 

[WildcatNC]

And because you want to believe that you ignore that Kerry could've beat Bush if not for 9/11 and the fact that we were at the beginning of a recession rather than in the midst of one. Things didn't really get bad until early 2006.

IMO Kerry lost because he let the Republicans define him. He was weak on the campaigning aspect, ie. charisma, speaking, ads, etc.

I agree about 9/11 but I think Kerry and his campaign being incompetent had more to do with it than the economy at the time.

I'm still unconvinced Romney will pull the Evangelical south as heavily in a general as a normal R candidate once they find out more about Mormons (which i'm sure they are pretty ignorant of atm.)

I'm not sure that Obama won't beat him handily. Obama is the best campaigner out there atm. We'll know more once they are both really geared up and going at it.

 

[Marx]

Obama is definitely the better campaigner.

 

[Hotwire]

IMO Kerry lost because he let the Republicans define him. He was weak on the campaigning aspect, ie. charisma, speaking, ads, etc.

I agree about 9/11 but I think Kerry and his campaign being incompetent had more to do with it than the economy at the time.

I'm still unconvinced Romney will pull the Evangelical south as heavily in a general as a normal R candidate once they find out more about Mormons (which i'm sure they are pretty ignorant of atm.)

I'm not sure that Obama won't beat him handily. Obama is the best campaigner out there atm. We'll know more once they are both really geared up and going at it.

I would hate to think that Romney would win a state like South Carolina where it's documented that he was running Bain when it shut down Georgetown Steel, sending hundreds of locals to the unemployment line. I really think the Democrats could destroy Romney based based on his time in charge of Bain Capitol alone.

 

[WildcatNC]

Obama is definitely the better campaigner.

Yea, and i'm not sure it won't be a Kennedy/Nixon, TV type contrast once the campaign gets started in earnest.

Romney will look bad next to Obama. Hell, Romney looks bad by himself half the time.

 

[Marx]

New poll for a new thread? Who will complete the Romney ticket as vice-presidential nominee?

 

[Thundercrack85]

He'll probably pick a conservative, since he lacks credibility as a conservative himself. And given how poorly he performed in the South, he'll probably look for a Southerner. However, going too conservative is risky. You want to maximize appeal obviously.

 

[Pagan]

Yea, and i'm not sure it won't be a Kennedy/Nixon, TV type contrast once the campaign gets started in earnest.

Romney will look bad next to Obama. Hell, Romney looks bad by himself half the time.

There are archives of footage showing Romney taking both sides of every issue. All Obama has to do is run ads juxtaposing Romney against himself.
That and show how he made his fortune killing jobs and gutting companies while leaving the taxpayer with the bill for cleaning up.