Could it be happening?!

[Timsup2nothin]

You spin me right round baby right round like a record baby right round right round.

Hope you enjoy the ride.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Money doesn't really matter in political campaigns as much as is commonly assumed. It may be essential for obscure candidates to make themselves more widely known nationwide, but is unlikely to help someone already as well known as Romney.


If Romney does manage to win the primary (which I thin unlikely), then he would almost certainly loose the general election even worse than he did last time.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Money doesn't really matter in political campaigns as much as is commonly assumed. It may be essential for obscure candidates to make themselves more widely known nationwide, but is unlikely to help someone already as well known as Romney.


If Romney does manage to win the primary (which I thin unlikely), then he would almost certainly loose the general election even worse than he did last time.

It only doesn't matter if you have it.

If you don't have it and can't get it you are doomed. A presidential campaign costs tens of billions of dollars.

I agree that Romney will get creamed in the general election...and should and would in the primaries if there were anyone to go against him. It is just too easy to dredge up all his vote killing positions from last time and either force him to reclaim them or recant them...and smack him around no matter which he does.

 

[Hygro]

When a non-rule settles in as reality, there is probably an underlying reason that means its unlikely to happen this time.

I agree but there are not enough data points for this.

I really don't think Mitt is a weak general election candidate.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I really don't think Mitt is a weak general election candidate.

I think his performance in the last general election indicates otherwise. For a guy whose father ran for president who was basically raised to run himself...the guy ran a horrid campaign.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I think his performance in the last general election indicates otherwise. For a guy whose father ran for president who was basically raised to run himself...the guy ran a horrid campaign.

And, again, it's worth reiterating what has been pointed out by others in this thread, that just because he runs again doesn't mean he gets a clean slate. The stuff he said and did during the last election that lost it for him will be dragged right back out into the limelight, putting him in a bad position where he either has to stand by what he said before ("See guys, he's still just as crazy as last time!") or go back on what he said before ("He's a flip-flopper, we can't trust a flip-flopper with power!"). It's a hard sell either way to the people who didn't like him last time. Maybe if the democratic candidate this time is significantly less charismatic than Obama. Maybe.

 

[Cutlass]

Money doesn't really matter in political campaigns as much as is commonly assumed. It may be essential for obscure candidates to make themselves more widely known nationwide, but is unlikely to help someone already as well known as Romney.


If Romney does manage to win the primary (which I thin unlikely), then he would almost certainly loose the general election even worse than he did last time.

Money matters a very great deal in the party primaries. The candidate with the most money has by far the best chance of being nominated.

 

[bhsup]

Link to video.

He must have read my thread!

 

[Colonel]

I really hope that Romney wins the RNC primary, pretty much a sure bet he loses to Hilary Clinton in the general election.

Clinton 2016!!!!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I really hope that Romney wins the RNC primary, pretty much a sure bet he loses to Hilary Clinton in the general election.

Clinton 2016!!!!

 

[Farm Boy]

Clinton is pretty much a neocon in blue clothing, isn't she?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Clinton is pretty much a neocon in blue clothing, isn't she?

Depends. If you talk to someone who splits the spectrum between isolationists and neocons they will say yes she is. If you use this definition or this one, both from conservatives trying to distance themselves from the neocons, you'll find things like these:

But this has always been the neocon ruse—if neoconservatives can convince others that fighting some war, somewhere is for America’s actual defense, they will always make this argument and stretch any logic necessary to do so.

First, an interventionist foreign policy, using U.S. power to impose democracy and “end tyranny on this earth".

The “neocons” believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power—through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement.

Bottom line, the neocons are the ones saying 'the only mistake made in Iraq was leaving' and 'if we had just stayed the course Iraq would be a shining beacon of democracy'...or 'well Iraq didn't work because Obama screwed up, but it will work in Iran for sure.

 

[Colonel]

Surprised? Lol, I'm a registered Democrat. I've voted for Obama too, 4 times now in fact if your counting the primaries.

 

[Ajidica]

Money matters a very great deal in the party primaries. The candidate with the most money has by far the best chance of being nominated.

Freakonomics did a rough and dirty model that indicated money is less important than being a viable candidate. If you are a candidate that nobody likes, all the money in the world can't erase that. However, money can easily catapult a mediocre candidate into competitiveness.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Freakonomics did a rough and dirty model that indicated money is less important than being a viable candidate. If you are a candidate that nobody likes, all the money in the world can't erase that. However, money can easily catapult a mediocre candidate into competitiveness.

Big money donors don't back non-viable candidates anyway. The vaguely electable candidate that really needs their money is more in line with their objectives.

 

[Cutlass]

Freakonomics did a rough and dirty model that indicated money is less important than being a viable candidate. If you are a candidate that nobody likes, all the money in the world can't erase that. However, money can easily catapult a mediocre candidate into competitiveness.

Viable for what race though? Viable for the primaries and viable for the general election are 2 different things.

In the 2 most recent US Senate elections in Connecticut, the Republican candidate was Linda McMahon. She has no political experience and a fair amount of negative baggage. And got well trounced in the general election both times. But she had so much money that she had a walk through for the Republican nomination. And the 2 men she beat for those nominations were both former Republican members of the US House. One of long standing. So she beat 2 better known and well qualified candidates, and did it not on merit, but on a deep bank account.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Surprised? Lol, I'm a registered Democrat. I've voted for Obama too, 4 times now in fact if your counting the primaries.

Little Ef Up to Assumption: "Hi mom!"

 

[Farm Boy]

Depends. If you talk to someone who splits the spectrum between isolationists and neocons they will say yes she is. If you use this definition or this one, both from conservatives trying to distance themselves from the neocons, you'll find things like these:




Bottom line, the neocons are the ones saying 'the only mistake made in Iraq was leaving' and 'if we had just stayed the course Iraq would be a shining beacon of democracy'...or 'well Iraq didn't work because Obama screwed up, but it will work in Iran for sure.

I think she might fit. Feels like we're steaming up both for a significant bombing run in the Middle East and a much more bellicose stance in the Baltic. Nevermind the Pacific for the moment.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think she might fit. Feels like we're steaming up both for a significant bombing run in the Middle East and a much more bellicose stance in the Baltic. Nevermind the Pacific for the moment.

Isolationists say "what goes on beyond our borders is none of our business, stay out of it". Neocons say "invading and building a democracy is our duty, so let's pick a target and go". There is a huge amount of middle ground where most people fit, including Clinton.

While my heart lies with the isolationists, my head recognizes that we live in a country where 5% of the world's population gets to consume over 30% of the world's resources, and that doesn't continue to happen just because we are so likable. Unless someone has a plan for convincing my fellow Americans that they should be satisfied by their fair share we will have to continue some form of bullying. We just need to stay away from the neocons because their ideas on how to go about it are grossly ineffective.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, she's doesn't exactly seem or sound like a dove, so if you're going to divide democratic hawk from neocon I don't actually see a terrible lot of functional difference.