So, why is Mitt going to lose?

[Mr. Kotter]

Poll Forthcoming.

Bottom-line for me: Obama hasn't been great, but Mitt is an awful candidate for America in 2012. For what it's worth, he'd have been a fine candidate for the GOP in the 1880s....but this ain't 1880.

290-248....you read it here.

FTR, the odds are 3:1, or 4:1. So, yes, I could end up being wrong...just sayin'.

Please discuss...

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

And this solidified him as the R's 2016 nominee. Hell, I'll give him a look over for 2016.

I've read numerous articles stating that the only way he has a hope and a prayer of being the R candidate in 2016 is if the right moves way center. A lot of the people in the GOP view him as a traitor, hell Rush called him a fat fool.

Now a lot of people think that with Mitt they did that, but you have to remember the R primary. Mitt sold himself as a solid conservative and then when it came to the general election tried to back pedal. This cost him a ton of credibility issues, because at the end it appeared he was pandering an awful lot to win the vote.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I've read numerous articles stating that the only way he has a hope and a prayer of being the R candidate in 2016 is if the right moves way center. A lot of the people in the GOP view him as a traitor, hell Rush called him a fat fool.

Which is why I would give him a look see. If he maintains a center approach and the R's still put him up as the nominee, he can govern from the middle.

I dont see any scenerio where he panders to the conservatives to win the primary. Thats his deal. speak the truth and dont pander.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Bowser

The Mourdocks' and Akins' of the world deserve all the shit that comes their way. They are idiots, and I would imagine republicans such as yourself would just as soon distance themselves from those train wrecks. Why wouldn't you?

I don't have a problem with their views even though I don't necessarily share them. On the whole, I'd rather have either of them in office than any democrat I can think of at the moment.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't have a problem with their views even though I don't necessarily share them. On the whole, I'd rather have either of them in office than any democrat I can think of at the moment.

And right there is the reason the R's lost control of the Senate.

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by Bump

I bet Ron Paul could beat Obama. But Mitt Romney is trying to lead for greed.

Yes, Ron Paul sure proved he could turn out the vote in the primaries.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't have a problem with their views even though I don't necessarily share them. On the whole, I'd rather have either of them in office than any democrat I can think of at the moment.

This is the standard shill response I have come to expect from any hardline supporter of either party. Not suprised.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

Yes, Ron Paul sure proved he could turn out the vote in the primaries.

Isolationism didn't work in the 1940's. It's not going to work in 2012. I don't see any major movement from the D's or R's to a 3rd party isolationist movement anytime soon.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Mitt's a lousy candidate, but the hilarious thing is that he was the best in the field. Bachmann, Santorum, Cain, Paul, Gingrich, they all would have gotten thrashed far worse than Mitt.

Mitt was the best in a very sorry lineup.

Nope, the best you had was Jon Huntsman.

But you wouldn't select Huntsman in a million years, because he *gasp* worked with Obama.

That's ultimately why the GOP is set to lose the POTUS and seats in both chambers. Because it honestly believed it would be a winning strategy to simply embrace the polar opposite of anything Obama ever thought, said, or did.

The inability to recognize that he's not an evil demon of a man is what shut out people like Chris Christie, negated the attempts by folks like Jon Huntsman, promoted the rise of fanatics like Bachmann and Perry, and the only person in the party with the ability to fit the GOP's Tea Party reinvention while not seeming like a total loser had to pretzel himself politically in order to pull it off -- and now looks certain to lose.

If you were one of the GOP's firebreathers for the past four years, then stop pointing your finger at the party. Point the finger at yourself for allowing Fox News and talk radio to spin yourself into an anti-Obama litmus test. You're the reason the Democratic Party is about to solidify Obama's accomplishments for a generation.

(This post was not directed at alnorth, who I can obviously vouch for as an intelligent moderate.)

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Which is why I would give him a look see. If he maintains a center approach and the R's still put him up as the nominee, he can govern from the middle.

I dont see any scenerio where he panders to the conservatives to win the primary. Thats his deal. speak the truth and dont pander.

The problem is that it would take the right moving to the center to get him on that stage. I don't see them willing to do that. One of their hottest factions in the recent past has been the extremely far right tea party. There's a whole lot of movement involved from there to the middle. It would alienate a large portion of the religious groups out there.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

The problem is that it would take the right moving to the center to get him on that stage. I don't see them willing to do that. One of their hottest factions in the recent past has been the extremely far right tea party. There's a whole lot of movement involved from there to the middle. It would alienate a large portion of the religious groups out there.

I think Christie can still get the nomination for two reasons:

1. The GOP really picks their candidates more than the grassroots Tea Party types do (John McCain, Mitt Romney), and the GOP shows a preference for the more moderate candidates at the POTUS level.

2. Christie isn't rightwing, but he's really aggressive and loud. Let's be honest: that plays well in the GOP right now.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

If Romney loses this election (I'm not ready to concede that as a fait accompli), a major reason (albeit not the only reason) will be the extreme right-wing policies of the Republican party.

Romney has several hurdles to overcome in his race against Obama. He is being held back by the Todd Akins and Richard Mourdocks of his own party who make idiotic comments about rape and God's will and women's bodies shutting down in cases of "legitimate" rape. He's being held back by the Michelle Bachmans and the Rick Santorums who are hell-bent to impose their strict moral and religious values on a voting bloc that doesn't share those values. And to some extent he's also being held back by the policy failures of the Bush administration.

Romney has been by no means a perfect candidate. He waited far too long to repudiate the attacks on his personal record, and he didn't hit Obama nearly hard enough on the current Benghazi scandal in the last debate. But the major problem for the Romney candidacy is that he was put in the very difficult position of having to convince the Tea Partiers that he was conservative enough to get the Republican nomination, and now that conservatism (faux that it may be) is unappealing to a large percentage of voters.

I only drop by here from time to time, but this is exactly right from my perspective. If Romney was more moderate on the social issues (gay marriage, abortion, drug policy), I'd be voting for him. The Republican party as a whole has just gone too far "RWNJ" on the social issues these days for me to even consider.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I only drop by here from time to time, but this is exactly right from my perspective. If Romney was more moderate on the social issues (gay marriage, abortion, drug policy), I'd be voting for him. The Republican party as a whole has just gone too far "RWNJ" on the social issues these days for me to even consider.

Thats what I've been saying. If the R's hadn't lurched to the hard right, especially on social issues, on Jan 2013 the R's would have control of the house, Senate and the Presidency.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Thats what I've been saying. If the R's hadn't lurched to the hard right, especially on social issues, on Jan 2013 the R's would have control of the house, Senate and the Presidency.

But that's how they got their voting bloc. They appealed to angry, yet pious, white Christians instead of attempting to expand their base. They do what conservatives do, they contracted. The divorce is going to be messy. Even their own strategists have admitted this is probably the last Presidential election where a candidate can specifically target the white vote and still win.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Thats what I've been saying. If the R's hadn't lurched to the hard right, especially on social issues, on Jan 2013 the R's would have control of the house, Senate and the Presidency.

Funny because, Mitt is really a Massachusetts liberal who ran to the left of Ted Kennedy and governed the state like Mario Cuomo. He's only appealing to the conservative base on social issues. His own father was a progressive.

He just doesn't have the charm Obama has which is marketing appeal without substance and is based on lies.

Fact is the Ryan and Obama budget's are nearly the same amount. Even the cuts to Medicare are similar. They just allocate or re-allocate differently.

Both sides of the aisle are blind these days.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

Yes, Ron Paul sure proved he could turn out the vote in the primaries.

Primaries are an entirely different battle and election. You're not comparing apples to oranges. Plus polls disagree with your opinion.