Why do the liberal wing nuts on this board keep bring up Palin, Perry, Trump, Cruse, Bockman or anyone else that doesn't have a chance of seriously winning the Republican nomination.
I know this was tongue in cheek but Lord have mercy Susana is a godawful Governor who was only reelected because the Dem opponent basically ran his campaign with pocket change. She has done literally nothing her first four years in office other than watch New Mexico somehow slide even further down the rankings in job creation, crime, poverty, you name it. The state cannot even have an audit performed because they cannot balance their cash and just recently admitted publicly that hundreds of millions of dollars could be missing.
Because anyone can run, engage the frontrunners and capitalize on their mistakes. Also, primary voters are bonkers bat**** at their core and would fund and nominate a certain loser out of pure spite.
Well probably the best GOP candidate just dropped out... A good 45-47% of voters vote blindly republican, but this race is going Democrat guaranteed.
He's used goods and a brown noser. Hopefully the GOP can get away from the Cruz loving teabags and put Rubio as its lead vote getter. He's gonna need somebody to counter Crus strong right wing appeal.
What are the odds Romney gets a cabinet position? I wouldn't be surprised if Bush made a deal with Romney, in exchange for his support + network during the primary for a senior level later on.
Maybe, but I didn't think there was a chance he would actually run. Romney is a 67 year-old two-time loser and chunks of the Republican base dislike him. A matchup of Romney vs. Hillary in 2016 would have been the dullest campaign in the last 40 years (because of the two dinosaur candidates and the certainty of Hillary winning)
I said the same thing about Romney very early on in 2012. But it isn't the same at all this time. Bush now isn't equivalent to Romney 4 years ago and I don't believe the alternatives will be 100% freak show material this time around. Bush will not be the nominee.
I always felt Romney was competent and think if he had been elected he wouldn't have done a bad job. The real problem with Romney that I had was that he didn't really seem to have any principles. His severely conservative candidate persona seemed diametrically opposed to what he did as Mass governor. Whether you are a liberal, conservative or moderate it just didn't seem like you could know what Romney really was.
This "problem" is not specific to Romney, what you saw was the media looking for an issue to attack Romney on, and this was it. Look at Hillary Clinton's positions over the years on gay marriage, the war in Iraq, and immigration policy. Look at Obama's positions on gay marriage, executive orders, and approving continuing resolutions to fund the government during times of deficits. This problem is inherent in all politicians (with the possible exception of Ron Paul). The core of political science if finding positions on issues where you can piece together voting coalitions. By its very definition, successful politicians must shift with the positions of voters over time. Romney seemed disingenuous because he was not always a politician. He was a highly successful businessman prior to entering politics. So he looked like a bad politician because he was so unaccustomed to lying and flip flopping. Hillary and Obama have no such problem.
Seriously? Did you write that with no sarcasm intended at all? So was Romney for healthcare before he was against it? Or being for the right to an abortion before he was against it? Or believing in global warming before he denied it? Or agreeing with same sex marriage before he was against it? Nice to have you back Jorge.
"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman." Spoiler - Hillary Clinton "It is clear...that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Spoiler - Hillary Clinton
The difference is that one person Spoiler - Hillary Clinton is moving towards enlightenment, tolerance and light, while the other Spoiler - Mitt Romney wants to take the country back (to 1950).
If either party nominates a Bush or a Clinton then they are effectively handing the election to the other party, if both a Bush and a Clinton get the nominations, it's a toss up.
