Romney Speculation

Schmoe wrote:
It's not so much that states are suddenly leaning more left than they have in the past, it's that Chicago politics have been introduced on the national level and voter fraud runs rampant. Voter ID's need to happen if we the people are ever to take back control of our country.

I'm sorry, but voter fraud is not the answer to why states like Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia are moving to the left. There are several reasons why the GOP is losing ground in these places, not withstanding these last mid term elections (Obama is just sooooo unpopular). It's a perception issue (most of which is untrue, but perception is reality).



I will buy some degree of voter fraud/intimidation in some of the states that have long been dem strong holds, but have been moving slightly more conservative (PA, MI, WI for example).

A "Tip 'o the Hat" to Sno - he called it - and stood by his statements.



Washington Post today -

"Romney moves to reassemble campaign team for ‘almost certain’ 2016 bid"



Mitt Romney is moving quickly to reassemble his national political network, calling former aides, donors and other supporters over the weekend and on Monday in a concerted push to signal his seriousness about possibly launching a 2016 presidential campaign.



Romney’s message, as he told one senior Republican, was that he “almost certainly will” make what would be his third bid for the White House.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-moves-to-reassemble-campaign-apparatus-for-2016/2015/01/12/d968592e-9a88-11e4-96cc-e858eba91ced_story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ddawg wrote:
A "Tip 'o the Hat" to Sno - he called it - and stood by his statements.



Washington Post today -

"Romney moves to reassemble campaign team for ‘almost certain’ 2016 bid"



Mitt Romney is moving quickly to reassemble his national political network, calling former aides, donors and other supporters over the weekend and on Monday in a concerted push to signal his seriousness about possibly launching a 2016 presidential campaign.



Romney’s message, as he told one senior Republican, was that he “almost certainly will” make what would be his third bid for the White House.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-moves-to-reassemble-campaign-apparatus-for-2016/2015/01/12/d968592e-9a88-11e4-96cc-e858eba91ced_story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I knew after BYU's homecoming game that a Romney run in 2016 was certain. This isn't some decision Mitt made recently, it was made months, if not years, ago and they're just moving forward with that plan.



I still like Mitt, though I'm far less excited than I was in the past. One positive to Mitt being back in the race is that it presents the opportunity for a divided "establishment"/"inevitable nominee" voting block as Mitt, Bush, and Christie will be vying for those same dollars and votes, opening a path to the nomination for younger firebrands like Cruz/Walker to push ahead on a plurality basis. If nothing else, I like Mitt in the race as a blocker against the more progressive Bush.

snoscythe wrote:

A "Tip 'o the Hat" to Sno - he called it - and stood by his statements.



Washington Post today -

"Romney moves to reassemble campaign team for ‘almost certain’ 2016 bid"



Mitt Romney is moving quickly to reassemble his national political network, calling former aides, donors and other supporters over the weekend and on Monday in a concerted push to signal his seriousness about possibly launching a 2016 presidential campaign.



Romney’s message, as he told one senior Republican, was that he “almost certainly will” make what would be his third bid for the White House.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-moves-to-reassemble-campaign-apparatus-for-2016/2015/01/12/d968592e-9a88-11e4-96cc-e858eba91ced_story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I knew after BYU's homecoming game that a Romney run in 2016 was certain. This isn't some decision Mitt made recently, it was made months, if not years, ago and they're just moving forward with that plan.



I still like Mitt, though I'm far less excited than I was in the past. One positive to Mitt being back in the race is that it presents the opportunity for a divided "establishment"/"inevitable nominee" voting block as Mitt, Bush, and Christie will be vying for those same dollars and votes, opening a path to the nomination for younger firebrands like Cruz/Walker to push ahead on a plurality basis. If nothing else, I like Mitt in the race as a blocker against the more progressive Bush.

My only fear is that he will get the nomination. Don't get me wrong, I like the man and voted for him twice. I just don't think he can win. Even if he was right about Russia, Obamacare, and the Economy, I don't think he can get past his image problem of not relating to the common man. I too hope that he allows someone that is more relatable and better for the country to receive the nomination than another establishment progressive in conservative's clothing.

I still like Mitt, though I'm far less excited than I was in the past. One positive to Mitt being back in the race is that it presents the opportunity for a divided "establishment"/"inevitable nominee" voting block as Mitt, Bush, and Christie will be vying for those same dollars and votes, opening a path to the nomination for younger firebrands like Cruz/Walker to push ahead on a plurality basis. If nothing else, I like Mitt in the race as a blocker against the more progressive Bush.[/quote]



My only fear is that he will get the nomination. Don't get me wrong, I like the man and voted for him twice. I just don't think he can win. Even if he was right about Russia, Obamacare, and the Economy, I don't think he can get past his image problem of not relating to the common man. I too hope that he allows someone that is more relatable and better for the country to receive the nomination than another establishment progressive in conservative's clothing.[/quote]



I'll be very grateful if Romney is "a blocker against the more progressive Bush".



I agree with the statement, "establishment progressive in conservative's clothing".



The Republican party is full of these kind of people. I hope Mitt moves away from them. They are much more for their own power than for our freedoms. I have stopped listening to Michael Medvid for this reason. He was trying to convince people that McCain was conservative!

I like Mitt and feel he would have been a tremendous upgrade to what we have now. But he clearly has the wrong people in his ear and because of that he continues to disappoint. So far, he doesn't seem to have learned his lesson from last election results. He didn't lose because he can't relate to the common man, that is a media concoction, he lost because he did not sufficiently motivate the conservative base. Romney did worse among conservatives than did McCain. Think about that! Had Mitt rallied conservatives instead of trying to pander to liberals, he would have won. Heck, McCain would have won! Granted, some of that may have reflected a religion bias but a candidate cannot straddle liberal and conservative principles and be taken seriously by either base.



So as much as I would have liked Mitt to win the last election and I think he adds interest to this one, my eye is on Cruz and Walker.

tww wrote:
I like Mitt and feel he would have been a tremendous upgrade to what we have now. But he clearly has the wrong people in his ear and because of that he continues to disappoint. So far, he doesn't seem to have learned his lesson from last election results. He didn't lose because he can't relate to the common man, that is a media concoction, he lost because he did not sufficiently motivate the conservative base. Romney did worse among conservatives than did McCain. Think about that! Had Mitt rallied conservatives instead of trying to pander to liberals, he would have won. Heck, McCain would have won! Granted, some of that may have reflected a religion bias but a candidate cannot straddle liberal and conservative principles and be taken seriously by either base.



So as much as I would have liked Mitt to win the last election and I think he adds interest to this one, my eye is on Cruz and Walker.

You may have a point there about trying to please the wrong people.



I'd still like to know what happened between the 1st and 2nd debates.

nuk13 wrote:

I like Mitt and feel he would have been a tremendous upgrade to what we have now. But he clearly has the wrong people in his ear and because of that he continues to disappoint. So far, he doesn't seem to have learned his lesson from last election results. He didn't lose because he can't relate to the common man, that is a media concoction, he lost because he did not sufficiently motivate the conservative base. Romney did worse among conservatives than did McCain. Think about that! Had Mitt rallied conservatives instead of trying to pander to liberals, he would have won. Heck, McCain would have won! Granted, some of that may have reflected a religion bias but a candidate cannot straddle liberal and conservative principles and be taken seriously by either base.



So as much as I would have liked Mitt to win the last election and I think he adds interest to this one, my eye is on Cruz and Walker.

You may have a point there about trying to please the wrong people.



I'd still like to know what happened between the 1st and 2nd debates.

The 2nd debate format was trash, but it also appeared that Romney didn't quite understand how it worked. Both got to respond, and then there was to be an "exchange". Obama kept talking, and Mitt just sat down.



If Mitt had performed better in that debate, who knows what would have happened. The 3rd debate, on foreign policy, was always going to be won by the incumbant.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Welp, Romney's out. I think he waited too long to put his toes back in the water and sent too many mixed messages, the combined result was seeing some of his best strategists/aides lining up with Walker, Rubio, and Bush instead of waiting for Mitt to send a clear message.



So much for a foil against Bush. I'm now 65% in for Walker, 35% for Cruz.

Agree. Romney dithered and took too long. About 60 days ago he needed to make his move and declare. Too bad. I think Mitt could have won 2016 if he jumped in several months ago. He had lots of support and momentum.



I'm a Walker guy now.

I'd be ok with Walker or Cruz or Rubio. I think as Mitt did more research, he saw that while people now wish he had won in 2012, that didn't necessarily translate into adesire to see him run in 2016.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I'm backing Hillary now because I'd like to back a candidate with a chance to win.

snoscythe wrote:
Glenn Beck is now guessing that in Mitt's meeting with Jeb last week, Mitt was promised some Cabinet-level role in a Bush III White House in exchange for dropping out early. The damning speculation by Beck is that this was Romney's ploy the whole time.



If that was Mitt's plan, Mitt's a tool because I know people who've been donating time/money for Mitt already based upon Mitt's indication he was serious again.

I don't believe that was Mitt's plan. I think Mitt was serious about running, but waited too long to jump in. His timing and personal judgement failed. This surprises me, since this is not Mitt's 1st rodeo. I think he just dawdled and dithered too long. Top strategists and campaign donors committed to other candidates. Mitt was left twiddling his thumbs.



I understand Beck's speculation. I just think it misses the mark.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I'd be ok with Walker or Cruz or Rubio.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I like those 3 or about anybody else but another bush or christy.

nuk13 wrote:

I'd be ok with Walker or Cruz or Rubio.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I like those 3 or about anybody else but another bush or christy.

I'd probably vote for Rand Paul over Bush or Christie.

I am out on Christie. Not even a consideration. Nuff said.