• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

No brainer prediction, Romney gets nominated only to lose to Obama

Hugo Drax

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2011
5,647
47
91
This is pretty much a sure thing.

The GOP made real poor choices in electing a candidate to run against Obama in 2012. The only potential candidate that could have done real well against Obama and maybe win would have been Huntsman.

Unfortunately, the Lord of the Flies situation that occurred within the GOP candidates and the Teaparty influence means we end up with the a unelectable candidate to go against Obama.

Romney will just come off as some caricature of a 1980s Gordon Gekko LBO liquidator, the dude who closed your dads/grandfathers etc.. workplace and sent it to china. To the average working stiff he will be the big elite Wallstreet guy who destroys jobs, gets government bailouts and makes a shit load of money and pay less taxes then you did.

Stuff like the Cayman offshore entities will not help. The working silent majority middle class will despise what he is and he will lose. Obama will win by default as being the less of the evil.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/romney-parks-millions-offshore-tax-haven/story?id=15378566#.TxnPbWBOpGH

Congrats Tea Party and GOP for handing Obama 4 years on a silver platter.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Counting chickens eh? :p

Obama will probably win but don't overestimate a large majority of independents going for him. I think it will be fairly close.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,156
7,740
146
Counting chickens eh? :p

Obama will probably win but don't overestimate a large majority of independents going for him. I think it will be fairly close.
I tend to agree, if Romney is the nominee which is likely. Hs been neck and neck with Obama in polling without much deviation. They both have plenty to hit the other with during the general.

I'm sure Obama's team will not be as confident as many of his supporters.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,302
9
81
I agree with this prediction. I think it'll be closer than the last election, but still significantly in Obama's favor.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
I agree with this prediction. I think it'll be closer than the last election, but still significantly in Obama's favor.
It should be pretty simple, really. All Obama has to do is paint Romney as a tool of the Tea Party and he will win.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
If you're so sure why waste time on us? Get all the money you can and put your bet down.
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,381
94
86
Thats the way things are going right now. It all depends on the economy, if it continues to slowly get better, Obama wins easily, if it tanks, Romney has an opening to win. Romney by himself is kinda a blah candidate, he wont excite enough people to vote for him unless his opponent is really hurting. It wouldnt surprise me if Obama nominates Clinton to be VP in order to prep her for a 2016 run at the president.
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
24,235
1,865
126
It could be worse... can you imagine the Obama landslide if Gingrich somehow becomes the nominee?

Seriously... How many women do you think will vote for him with the history he has?
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,083
126
Landside for Obama.... Doesn't matter if it's Mitt or Newt...

\make sure to thank the "tea party" for the everything or nothing attitude...
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Landside for Obama.... Doesn't matter if it's Mitt or Newt...

\make sure to thank the "tea party" for the everything or nothing attitude...
You think the independents are going fall all over themselves to pick either candidate? It will be a matter of who smells less.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,083
126
You think the independents are going fall all over themselves to pick either candidate? Out will be a matter of who smells less.
And you are correct, sir, except I never buy the line of one being an "independent."

Push an "independent" far enough, it tends to favor the GOP.... and what has the GOP to offer?

The Wall Street Pig or the Money Grubbing Philandering Pig....

\oink, oink, oink... and thank those SuperPacs for allowing a keen eye onto those "front runners..."
 
Last edited:

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Romney is definitely the most appealing candidate the GOP has to offer, and he has the best chance to win against Obama. It's primarily because he doesn't pander to the racists and religious Christian whackos in the GOP. He's a strict Rockefeller Republican to his core, and by far more left-leaning when it comes to social issues.

IMHO this is really the only kind of candidate that can win in a general election anymore. The GOP can't put forward a nutcase like Santorum or someone as divisive as Gingrich and expect to win. Those candidates don't have much appeal to anyone outside of the GOP base.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
52% to 48% on intrade last i checked, hardly a sure thing my friend.

As a matter of fact, the odds of republicans winning the white hours go UP when Romney's primary winning odds increase.
 

IonusX

Senior member
Dec 25, 2011
392
0
0
the only candidate with a good shot is ron paul on the repub. side of things. while he is untested metal as far as idea's go. he has basically little dirt to be thrown at him. racism would mean little i imagine if he struck down youe debt to zippo and made instead a surplus
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
don't blame the GOP for Huntsman losing, he ran a genuinely poor campaign.

I don't really see how it's not Romney, though.

situation A: Romney wins South Carolina (an unthinkable proposition just a few months ago) and the race is over.

situation B: Newt wins South Carolina and forces the race to drag on, damaging Romney's brand in the process, but Romney still wins Florida and all the high-delegate Western and Northeast/Mid-Atlantic states, securing the nomination.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
I'm not convinced that Romney will win the nomination. The amount of anti-Romney support is larger than the amount of pro-Romney support. If two of the three remaining anti-Romney candidates bail out and it comes down to a 1v1 between Romney and Gingrich, Gingrich might win it.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
And you are correct, sir, except I never buy the line of one being an "independent."

Push an "independent" far enough, it tends to favor the GOP.... and what has the GOP to offer?

The Wall Street Pig or the Money Grubbing Philandering Pig....

\oink, oink, oink... and thank those SuperPacs for allowing a keen eye onto those "front runners..."
Perhaps an independent is one who doesn't like either of them :D
To my way of thinking an independent for whatever reason tends to identify less with either party as being correct. I realize that's vague and theres a continuum of thought rather than hard and fast rules on who one picks for office. Perhaps it's how significant one finds the R or D after the name to be independent of other factors, but that's not your point precisely I understand. I agree that Obama is likely to win, but the op appears to believe it will be a crushing victory. My sense of things is that there isn't a lot of support based on perceived merit and so we'll have yet another election based on picking he who sucks least. Polls suggest thats pretty much a toss of a coin between Obama and Romney. Victory? Very possible but a rout? I think not.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
12,387
3,753
136
Agreed on a narrow Obama victory.

However, when looking at the track record of the Repubs, especially of the way things are going in the House, if moderate Romney ever gets to be POTUS, he will still have to kowtow and lick the boots of the Tea Party'ers just as Boehner is having to right at this very moment.

The very idea of having the Tea Party dictate terms to a sitting president like they're doing right now to House Speaker Boehner is, from my view as an independent, impossible to accept.
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,687
4,354
136
This election should have been a slam dunk for Repubs. They failed miserably this go around. People have never felt more disenfranchised with Obama and will not nearly have the hope or enthusiasm they had the last go around. That would have been a critical disadvantage. Too bad for Repubs though they opted to compromise their values and "settle" for someone in their dearest heart of hearts is a consolation prize at best. They champion Romney solely as someone they can barely stand only a little more then the alternative.

Nobody likes him. Democrats don't care for him, obviously. But not even his own party wants him. "I'm not what any of what you wanted, but I'm not Obama" is no way to energize or invigorate your party. What once would have been a critical disadvantage for the Democrats has effectively been made into a level playing field.

52% to 48% on intrade last i checked, hardly a sure thing my friend.
Sure. In bizzaro America where we elected our presidents through popular vote. :thumbsdown:

What a mess. Persisting in keeping ridiculous relics of a long gone era like the electoral college just results in people trying to game the system for personal (electoral) gain. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014276/Will-California-split-Legislators-propose-secession-13-southern-counties-state-division-Civil-War.html

Gotta' love America.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Thats the way things are going right now. It all depends on the economy, if it continues to slowly get better, Obama wins easily, if it tanks, Romney has an opening to win. Romney by himself is kinda a blah candidate, he wont excite enough people to vote for him unless his opponent is really hurting. It wouldnt surprise me if Obama nominates Clinton to be VP in order to prep her for a 2016 run at the president.
This. It's still too early to tell. Many things can change between now and November, with the economy consistently being a major factor in elections throughout history. I think Obama's odds look much better today than they did even six months ago, but it could still go either way. The more time the Republicans spend destroying each other, the better it is for not only Obama, but Democrats in general.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
This. It's still too early to tell. Many things can change between now and November, with the economy consistently being a major factor in elections throughout history. I think Obama's odds look much better today than they did even six months ago, but it could still go either way. The more time the Republicans spend destroying each other, the better it is for not only Obama, but Democrats in general.
Interestingly enough, I heard a pundit saying that the attacks by the candidates on each other was a good thing. People could hear the attack, learn about it, and put it behind them. That attack would no longer be useful to Obama. Well, it would be useful, but only in convincing those who were already going to vote for Obama...but not useful for changing anyone else's mind. Basically, he said it was gaining an immunization against that item.

Dunno if he is right, we will see this election cycle.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
it's a little of both... the downside is that if Romney had this thing locked up, he could save his warchest and airtime to attack Obama and build up the idea that, as indifferent as Republican voters may be to him, they hate Obama enough to make up for it.

but it's not hard to imagine what might have happened if something like the Reverend Wright videos had come out a week before the election instead of in the primaries, giving the candidate plenty of time to address the story and move past it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY