Support NeoGAF

[Black Mamba]

The "blue wall" is sort of a red herring.

The issue is that nationally, the Dems are at a massive advantage. This is why the blue wall exists. Unless these swing states start seeing a change in the demographics, for whatever reason, this is unlikely to change.

So yeah, if Romney won the vote nationally the blue wall would be irrelevant. But the blue wall exists because GOP cannot win the national vote.

It's a simple math problem. The nation continues to get more progressive. The reason for this is old people that are more conservative are dying and young people are becoming voters. Additionally, immigrants and minorities are making up a greater share of the electorate. The world is less isolated, our experiences are more shared. Etc Etc.

The GOP's share of the electorate has steadily declined since Reagan (I'm lumping Perot in with Bush/Dole here) and there's no indication this will change.

Hell, Mitt Romney did not even improve on McCain's numbers. Obama's got worse, but Mitt's basically were the same as McCain factoring in population growth.

The only things I can see to change this fortune is a disastrous foreign policy occurring, an economic downturn, or some real massive scandal. Without it, I see no reason for a sea change.

So Silver's argument is a red herring. That the blue wall will fall with a national shift is irrelevant. The blue wall exists because the national shift has gone the other way for decades now and there's zero indication it will change any time soon.

 

[Yellowtail]

But you gotta gotta give them props for having the passion behind their candidate. I venture to say most Democrats who support Hillary do so with winning in mind. Not to say Hillary dose not have her passionate supporters. The internet can be skewed in reaction I suppose

I think Obama sort of skewed things because everyone now expects their nominee to be the phenomenon he was in 2008. That's a once in a generation thing. Not everyone can generate as much enthusiasm as Obama or Reagan or JFK. Hillary certainly has more enthusiastic supporters than Kerry or Gore or even Bill in 1992 did. They're just not the demographic that generally argue on political forums. But PUMAs are real. Look at Hillaryis44.

The internet is definitely a really bad indicator of support. The British left learned this horrible lesson last week when it appeared no one would be voting Conservative judging by social media.

 

[Aaron Strife]

The "blue wall" is sort of a red herring.

The issue is that nationally, the Dems are at a massive advantage. This is why the blue wall exists. Unless these swing states start seeing a change in the demographics, for whatever reason, this is unlikely to change.

So yeah, if Romney won the vote nationally the blue wall would be irrelevant. But the blue wall exists because GOP cannot win the national vote.

It's a simple math problem. The nation continues to get more progressive. The reason for this is old people that are more conservative are dying and young people are becoming voters. Additionally, immigrants and minorities are making up a greater share of the electorate. The world is less isolated, our experiences are more shared. Etc Etc.

The GOP's share of the electorate has steadily declined since Reagan (I'm lumping Perot in with Bush/Dole here) and there's no indication this will change.

Hell, Mitt Romney did not even improve on McCain's numbers. Obama's got worse, but Mitt's basically were the same as McCain factoring in population growth.

The only things I can see to change this fortune is a disastrous foreign policy occurring, an economic downturn, or some real massive scandal. Without it, I see no reason for a sea change.

So Silver's argument is a red herring. That the blue wall will fall with a national shift is irrelevant. The blue wall exists because the national shift has gone the other way for decades now and there's zero indication it will change any time soon.

Michael Dukakis would have won if demographics were the same in 1988 as they are now.

Let's think about that

Dukakis won 40% of the white vote (85% of the electorate), 89% of the black vote (10% of the electorate), and 70% of the Hispanic vote (3% of the electorate). Couldn't find numbers on Asian or "other" so I'll assume a 50-50 split there - they made up 2% of the electorate in 1988. Apply those numbers to a 69/13/13/5 electorate like what's projected in 2016 and Dukakis would have earned 50.8% of the popular vote and 279 electoral votes.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Nate Silver starts up the "DEAD HEAT" machine early.

This article is the height of relying on quantitative arguments with no appreciation for the qualitative ones.

He's got the 2014 elections wrong, Israel elections wrong and UK elections wrong. Dudes career is in a tailspin. His site is also the anthesis of his books thesis.

ESPN should have ponied up more for simmons instead of this clown.

 

[Yellowtail]

Anytime he's had to make predictions outside of 8 swing states in a Presidential election he's got it wrong. Admittedly calling Florida right in 2012 was impressive, but anyone who didn't unskew the polls could accurately predict what states Obama was going to win.

 

[Aaron Strife]

He's got the 2014 elections wrong, Israel elections wrong and UK elections wrong. Dudes career is in a tailspin. His site is also the anthesis of his books thesis.

ESPN should have ponied up more for simmons instead of this clown.

I think Silver has always been a little overrated. He's just a pundit who knows how to analyze and pay attention to polls. You'd see polls in 2012 coming out showing Obama beating Romney comfortably and consistently in states like Ohio, Virginia, Colorado and the media, desperate to make it interesting to talk about just wanted to call everything a swing state. The only tough call to make that year was whether Florida would go for Obama or Romney, and it wouldn't have mattered as far as who won the presidential election anyway.

His calls on the Senate races in 2012 weren't great either. North Dakota was hardly polled so there's not much he could do there, but his heavy reliance on state fundamentals gave Heidi Heitkamp only a 10% chance of winning in an election that other analysts (also me) called a tossup. It also gave Jon Tester only a 33% chance of winning even though he was leading in the majority of polls. He got 2014 wrong because the Senate polls were wrong in North Carolina and Kansas, and even moreso in the gubernatorial races.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForP...ould_bernie_sanders_be_supported_by_the_pope/

My favorite exchange in a thread chain somewhere was a guy who had worked on the McGovern and Mondale campaigns and was trying to urge realism, and a Sanders' supporter responded "Idk who they are. Did the media ignore them too? This will be different!"

lol youth.

I'm so glad I don't spend any time on reddit

 

[ivysaur12]

North Dakota was hardly polled so there's not much he could do there, but his heavy reliance on state fundamentals gave Heidi Heitkamp only a 10% chance of winning in an election that other analysts (also me) called a tossup.

YOU RANG?!?!?!

 

[Aaron Strife]

YOU RANG?!?!?!

Man I was so happy. I actually pegged ND as a loss and NV as a pickup, so it was an even trade.

 

[Abinash117]

Would socialism be good for the US?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Would socialism be good for the US?

yes

 

[Poodlestrike]

Would socialism be good for the US?

Speaking literally, we already have it. A little more would certainly do a lot of good, though.

 

[ivysaur12]

Man I was so happy. I actually pegged ND as a loss and NV as a pickup, so it was an even trade.

#HEITKAMP2016

 

[Yellowtail]

Jeb's new answer on Iraq based on what we know now on Hannity's show:

"I interpreted the question wrong, I guess... I don't know what that decision would have been - that's a hypothetical. That’s a hypothetical, but mistakes were made, as they always are in life.”

Has this guy done no prep work for this run? How can he not answer such a basic question?

And is he really the smart one?

 

[j_k_redtail]

Oh, that explains it...

Ex-Bush Aide: Jeb Told Me He Misheard Question About Invading Iraq

On Tuesday morning, Navarro she wasn't sure whether he would clarify the answer.

He won't, because it's an absurd statement. Jeb insists there's "no daylight" between himself and his brother with regard to the Iraq War. His original answer (paraphrased: I would've invaded, even knowing what we know now) was entirely consistent with that statement/ That exact answer would've been given by several members of his brother's administration, and is presumably the position of GWB himself.

They insist, as they have for the last twelve years, that the Iraq War was not a mistake. Seventy percent of Americans disagree.

So now Jeb says he misheard the question. He (supposedly) means that he would've invaded, knowing what we knew then, but not necessarily given what we know today. But doesn't that answer place some daylight between himself and his brother? So which is it, then?

 

[thepotatoman]

Michael Dukakis would have won if demographics were the same in 1988 as they are now.

Let's think about that

Interesting. By my calculations, in a two party race, Dukakis would get 49.8% of the vote with 2012 turnout and 1988 splits. That's close enough to be explained by a rounding error, and would definitely put him on top for 2016, unless minority turnout rate drops.

With those same stats, Mondale still only gets 45.8% against Reagan's reelection, so we'll probably have to wait until 2024 to be able to use him as an example.

Dukakis:
.403*71.1% + .882*12.5% + .693*10.8% + .479*5.6% = 49.8%

Mondale:
.351*71.1% + .907*12.5% + .625*10.8% + .490*5.6% = 45.8%

 

[NeoXChaos]

Would socialism be good for the US?

no.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Jeb's new answer on Iraq based on what we know now on Hannity's show:



Has this guy done no prep work for this run? How can he not answer such a basic question?

And is he really the smart one?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Interesting. By my calculations, in a two party race, Dukakis would get 49.8% of the vote with 2012 turnout and 1988 splits. That's close enough to be explained by a rounding error, and would definitely put him on top for 2016, unless minority turnout rate drops.

With those same stats, Mondale still only gets 45.8% against Reagan's reelection, so we'll probably have to wait until 2024 to be able to use him as an example.

Dukakis:
.403*71.1% + .882*12.5% + .693*10.8% + .479*5.6% = 49.8%

Mondale:
.351*71.1% + .907*12.5% + .625*10.8% + .490*5.6% = 45.8%

Yeah I was going by the projected demographic spread in 2016, which would be 69% white. The 2012 electorate was 72% white and Dukakis would still come up a little short.

Carter would have also defeated Reagan handily in 1980. I get the feeling Reagan '84 is about the only Republican campaign in recent history that would actually win with today's demographics - the GOP is going to either have to make huge inroads with minorities or win monstrous amounts of white voters if they want to win again anytime soon.

Here's a neat article that lays out three scenarios for 2016: one where the racial groups vote the exact same as they did in 2012, one where they vote as they did in 2004, and one where whites vote at 2012 levels but minorities vote at 2004 levels, a best-of-both-worlds scenario for the GOP. And they still lose every time.

 

[Fenderputty]

no.

Lol

 

[Abinash117]

Speaking literally, we already have it. A little more would certainly do a lot of good, though.

Like what? I see many, many people hate on capitalism and blame that on the problems that the country has. But then I read articles that said people generally don't know what socialism is; people seem to want more economic left policies that seem socialist, but don't want a lot government interference . But I usually think it is a lot of government oversight and some form of government welfare. I do agree we should help the poor a lot more, have a better healthcare, and among some other things, but I don't know about going all in. People that argue for capitalism usual think that it pulled people out of poverty like in China.

I always thought socialism worked in much smaller countries, I wouldn't know about a big country like the US.

Bernie Sanders is a self described democratic socialist and a lot of young people seem to like the idea of that. But I seriously doubt he will be even capable of changing much.

 

[CygnusXS]

Speaking literally, we already have it. A little more would certainly do a lot of good, though.

Well, more Social Democratic than socialist. You have a Keynesian welfare state (barely, at this point), which isn't really socialist.

 

[Black Mamba]

He won't, because it's an absurd statement. Jeb insists there's "no daylight" between himself and his brother with regard to the Iraq War. His original answer (paraphrased: I would've invaded, even knowing what we know now) was entirely consistent with that statement/ That exact answer would've been given by several members of his brother's administration, and is presumably the position of GWB himself.

They insist, as they have for the last twelve years, that the Iraq War was not a mistake. Seventy percent of Americans disagree.

So now Jeb says he misheard the question. He (supposedly) means that he would've invaded, knowing what we knew then, but not necessarily given what we know today. But doesn't that answer place some daylight between himself and his brother? So which is it, then?

This is actually wrong. GWB in his own memoirs says that he would not have invaded had the intelligence been correct. He maintains the world is safer without Saddam, but that he wouldn't have done it. Other members of the admin have said the same (not all but some).

I maintain that GWB isn't a bad guy. Foreign policy wise, he was originally against nation building and was far more isolationist. Once 9/11 hit, he allowed himself to be swayed by the neocons (Cheney et al) and basically handed the keys to them believing they knew what they were doing.

The W Bush admin was a disaster but I actually think W wasn't intentionally trying to harm people. I mean, the guy did try some immigration reform, he expanded the EITC, cut payroll taxes during the recession, tried education reform, expanded prescription coverage for the elderly, etc. Sometimes his policies might have hurt the middle and lower classes but he wasn't trying to do that (he was just wrong) unlike the current crop of GOP contenders who seem to hate the unfortunate.

Bush:

The reality was that I had sent American troops into combat based in large part on intelligence that proved false,

I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it...I still do.

Rove:

Would the Iraq War have occurred without WMD? I doubt it: Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the threat of WMD. The Bush administration itself would probably have sought other ways to constrain Saddam, bring about regime change and deal with Iraq's horrendous human rights violations.

Jeb truly is being different than his brother.

 

[Yellowtail]

Jeb, along with Cheney and Rumsfeld, was one of the initial signatories of PNAC. He's much more of a neocon than his brother.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Like what? I see many, many people hate on capitalism and blame that on the problems that the country has. But then I read articles that said people generally don't know what socialism is; people seem to want more economic left policies that seem socialist, but don't want a lot government interference . But I usually think it is a lot of government oversight and some form of government welfare. I do agree we should help the poor a lot more, have a better healthcare, and among some other things, but I don't know about going all in. People that argue for capitalism usual think that it pulled people out of poverty like in China.

I always thought socialism worked in much smaller countries, I wouldn't know about a big country like the US.

Bernie Sanders is a self described democratic socialist and a lot of young people seem to like the idea of that. But I seriously doubt he will be even capable of changing much.

I'm not opposed to nationalizing the healthcare industry, off the top of my head. Ditto expanding welfare, which involves more of a planned economy (in this case, a better-managed bottom level). It's not an all-or-nothing proposition, really.

Well, more Social Democratic than socialist. You have a Keynesian welfare state (barely, at this point), which isn't really socialist.

Eh. Wikipedia describes it as a spectrum, where there's some social ownership and some private ownership. Post office means we qualify!

 

[RustyNails]

Jeb's new answer on Iraq based on what we know now on Hannity's show:



Has this guy done no prep work for this run? How can he not answer such a basic question?

And is he really the smart one?

I'm asking the exact same questions. If my name is Bush and I'm trying to run for office, I'd be sure as fuck to have my answers on Iraq War focus-tested prepped and ready. The fuck is Jeb doing?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I can buy Jeb mis-hearing the question and giving an automatic answer...but not being able to say you wouldn't invade Iraq "knowing what we know now" is disqualifying. Yes Hillary voted for the war, but presumably her answer will be something along the lines of "we now know Iraq didn't have WMD, had nothing to do with 911, and posed no threat to the United States. Of course I wouldn't have agreed to invade Iraq, knowing what we know now." The end.

Mitt Romney has to be somewhere shaking his head. He could have taken this guy...

 

[RustyNails]

Mitt Romney has to be somewhere shaking his head. He could have taken this guy...

Actually Mittens is playing it smart. He made the calculations in his head, and he figures that he had more of a shot unseating Obama in 2012 than winning against Hildabeast in 2016. 2012 wasn't exactly boom cycle. UE was at 7%, gas was in higher $3, Benghazi fresh on people's minds (lol) etc. Right now? Nuthin. They can only pound Obama on ISIS/Syria which is not entirely his fault. The income inequality has a bigger imprint on the American zeitgeist than it did 5 years ago, country is more open to Immigration and LGBT issues, bubbling discontent against big banks and big corporations, etc. Republicans are DOA on all of these questions, so the only thing they can hope for is an external factor like a terrorist attack or a financial meltdown.

If I were him I'd sit this one out too, but keep eyes open for 2020 and onward. Also, ignore Nate Silver for now. He's a deadheat troll.

 

[Coriolanus]

Eh. Wikipedia describes it as a spectrum, where there's some social ownership and some private ownership. Post office means we qualify!

Military is almost always the best example of socialism. State has the monopoly on violence, provides almost everything, allows meritocracy, and gives you money according to it.

Why so many in the military are against "socialism", however, i've no fucking clue.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Military is almost always the best example of socialism. State has the monopoly on violence, provides almost everything, allows meritocracy, and gives you money according to it.

Why so many in the military are against "socialism", however, i've no fucking clue.

Honestly, I don't think people think of the military like that, as something that could even potentially be privatized. It just... is the way it is.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Actually Mittens is playing it smart. He made the calculations in his head, and he figures that he had more of a shot unseating Obama in 2012 than winning against Hildabeast in 2016. 2012 wasn't exactly boom cycle. UE was at 7%, gas was in higher $3, Benghazi fresh on people's minds (lol) etc. Right now? Nuthin. They can only pound Obama on ISIS/Syria which is not entirely his fault. The income inequality has a bigger imprint on the American zeitgeist than it did 5 years ago, country is more open to Immigration and LGBT issues, bubbling discontent against big banks and big corporations, etc. Republicans are DOA on all of these questions, so the only thing they can hope for is an external factor like a terrorist attack or a financial meltdown.

If I were him I'd sit this one out too, but keep eyes open for 2020 and onward. Also, ignore Nate Silver for now. He's a deadheat troll.

I disagree, this could be a perfect time to run. I'm not saying I believe Romney could beat Hillary but:

-The income inequality issue could be negated by a clever republican campaign. So much of GOP mantra is about cutting corporate taxes, there really hasn't been a simple middle class tax cut idea from them that resonates with people. Find one, create it, and run with it.

-His wealth and public awkwardness problems would be negated. The Clintons are also filthy rich, and Hillary is nearly as socially awkward. In fact I'd say that if Romney could just be himself, he'd be the most likable person in the election. He's a funny guy when he lets his guard down.

-Right or wrong, Obama's foreign policy is viewed poorly. Hillary is directly tied to it. Romney can run on being the guy who warned the world on Russia and the dangers of abandoning Iraq.

-The Mormon church is slowly adopting some gay friendly positions, Romney could do the same. Nothing drastic, but something more inclusive.

Again, I don't believe any republican can beat Hillary. But I can forsee a scenario where Romney legitimately believes he can win this, especially as Hillary continues to get trashed by bad stories/leaks.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think Romney's problem with his personality isn't that he's not a charming, funny guy in his own right, it's that he's charming and funny in a way that appeals much more to rich people. I've met plenty of rich guys who are great to talk to but are completely clueless about certain things because money has never been an issue for them. As a presidential candidate he does have to act differently to appeal to middle/lower income voters but when he does it's laughable and weird.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Even in the unlikely scenario of a brokered convention, Romney will not be the knight to the GOP princess that will swoop the party off its feet and save it from utter chaos.

 

[HylianTom]

I'd love a brokered convention in my lifetime. Here's hoping no one gets major momentum as actual voting starts. To think.. a meaningful convention. Still a shame that they're so obscenely early.

 

[kingkitty]

I'd love a brokered convention in my lifetime. Here's hoping no one gets major momentum as actual voting starts. To think.. a meaningful convention. Still a shame that they're so obscenely early.

It would be cool to see...as long as it's not happening to my party.

 

[Jooney]

I disagree, this could be a perfect time to run. I'm not saying I believe Romney could beat Hillary but:

-The income inequality issue could be negated by a clever republican campaign. So much of GOP mantra is about cutting corporate taxes, there really hasn't been a simple middle class tax cut idea from them that resonates with people. Find one, create it, and run with it.

-His wealth and public awkwardness problems would be negated. The Clintons are also filthy rich, and Hillary is nearly as socially awkward. In fact I'd say that if Romney could just be himself, he'd be the most likable person in the election. He's a funny guy when he lets his guard down.

-Right or wrong, Obama's foreign policy is viewed poorly. Hillary is directly tied to it. Romney can run on being the guy who warned the world on Russia and the dangers of abandoning Iraq.

-The Mormon church is slowly adopting some gay friendly positions, Romney could do the same. Nothing drastic, but something more inclusive.

Again, I don't believe any republican can beat Hillary. But I can forsee a scenario where Romney legitimately believes he can win this, especially as Hillary continues to get trashed by bad stories/leaks.

Good luck getting through the primaries though

 

[Roland_Gunner]

I disagree, this could be a perfect time to run. I'm not saying I believe Romney could beat Hillary but:

-The income inequality issue could be negated by a clever republican campaign. So much of GOP mantra is about cutting corporate taxes, there really hasn't been a simple middle class tax cut idea from them that resonates with people. Find one, create it, and run with it..

Rubio's trying this and the problem is that a Republican can't just push for a middle class tax cut and still get support. So you wind up with a tax program with breaks for the rich, middle class, and business thats so huge that not even conservatives believe its possible.

 

[Coriolanus]

I'd venture a guess that the problem with republicans going for a middle class tax cut is that the democrat reply is as easy as "you've control of congress, what are you waiting for?", at which point they lose whatever they'd gain from it due to open bipartisan support.

then democrats can throw "what took you so bloody long?" on top.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Honestly I think Mitt could get out of the primaries this year. Remember that when it seemed like he was running, he was planning on running to the right in order to capsize Jeb. Anti immigration, anti Common Core, etc mixed with populism (GOP populism, not real populism). He's a better debater than everyone in the GOP field except Cruz, but I think we all agree Cruz isn't going anywhere.

Bush looks weak and continues to dither. Romney was very much disliked by conservatives in 2011/2012 yet was doing well in early polling. Jeb Bush is well behind folks. And while you could argue he hasn't declared yet and thus hasn't received a bump...Scott Walker hasn't declared yet either and is well ahead of him.

I'd venture a guess that the problem with republicans going for a middle class tax cut is that the democrat reply is as easy as "you've control of congress, what are you waiting for?", at which point they lose whatever they'd gain from it due to open bipartisan support.

then democrats can throw "what took you so bloody long?" on top.

Can't that be argued about everything though? How many times do democrats run on not giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas? How's that working out.

 

[B-Dubs]

Honestly I think Mitt could get out of the primaries this year. Remember that when it seemed like he was running, he was planning on running to the right in order to capsize Jeb. Anti immigration, anti Common Core, etc mixed with populism (GOP populism, not real populism). He's a better debater than everyone in the GOP field except Cruz, but I think we all agree Cruz isn't going anywhere.

Bush looks weak and continues to dither. Romney was very much disliked by conservatives in 2011/2012 yet was doing well in early polling. Jeb Bush is well behind folks. And while you could argue he hasn't declared yet and thus hasn't received a bump...Scott Walker hasn't declared yet either and is well ahead of him.



Can't that be argued about everything though? How many times do democrats run on not giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas? How's that working out.

Walker is doing well because he hasn't declared and there's been next to no spotlight on him. Bush's numbers will start to go up, and Walker's down, when the primary season actually starts. The numbers right now are based solely on what's being reported in the news and it makes Bush look bad, not that he needs help, and the news is generally ignoring Walker right now. Those numbers will change when they both get out there.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Can't that be argued about everything though? How many times do democrats run on not giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas? How's that working out.

...? They're not the majority party in Congress.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Honestly I think Mitt could get out of the primaries this year. Remember that when it seemed like he was running, he was planning on running to the right in order to capsize Jeb. Anti immigration, anti Common Core, etc mixed with populism (GOP populism, not real populism). He's a better debater than everyone in the GOP field except Cruz, but I think we all agree Cruz isn't going anywhere.

Bush looks weak and continues to dither. Romney was very much disliked by conservatives in 2011/2012 yet was doing well in early polling. Jeb Bush is well behind folks. And while you could argue he hasn't declared yet and thus hasn't received a bump...Scott Walker hasn't declared yet either and is well ahead of him.



Can't that be argued about everything though? How many times do democrats run on not giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas? How's that working out.

?..... The Republicans have had the House for 16 of the last 20 years. They could have been done it if they wanted to by now. No excuse.

 

[pigeon]

-The income inequality issue could be negated by a clever republican campaign. So much of GOP mantra is about cutting corporate taxes, there really hasn't been a simple middle class tax cut idea from them that resonates with people. Find one, create it, and run with it.

Well, yeah. Also, the GOP has a problem with minorities, but all it really has to do is change its platform to not be racist, and then run with that.

There's a reason the GOP doesn't run on middle class tax cuts. It doesn't want middle class tax cuts. Somebody has to pay the taxes after the rich and corporate tax cuts! I would generally agree that if the GOP would just run as the Democratic Party it would do better overall.

 

[Wilsongt]

Obama takes a swipe at Fox and then they get all butthurt over it.

 

[thepotatoman]

Obama takes a swipe at Fox and then they get all butthurt over it.

How? Are they denying that they deliberately try to make the poor look bad?

 

[RustyNails]

I disagree, this could be a perfect time to run. I'm not saying I believe Romney could beat Hillary but:

-The income inequality issue could be negated by a clever republican campaign. So much of GOP mantra is about cutting corporate taxes, there really hasn't been a simple middle class tax cut idea from them that resonates with people. Find one, create it, and run with it.

-His wealth and public awkwardness problems would be negated. The Clintons are also filthy rich, and Hillary is nearly as socially awkward. In fact I'd say that if Romney could just be himself, he'd be the most likable person in the election. He's a funny guy when he lets his guard down.

-Right or wrong, Obama's foreign policy is viewed poorly. Hillary is directly tied to it. Romney can run on being the guy who warned the world on Russia and the dangers of abandoning Iraq.

-The Mormon church is slowly adopting some gay friendly positions, Romney could do the same. Nothing drastic, but something more inclusive.

Again, I don't believe any republican can beat Hillary. But I can forsee a scenario where Romney legitimately believes he can win this, especially as Hillary continues to get trashed by bad stories/leaks.

Just a pointer on eliteness/likeability. Both Romney and the Clintons are filthy rich, but Romney is an out of touch cyborg. Remember all the Robo Romney OS reboot jokes? He can never cross the "I feel your pain" barrier. Hillary is very likeable. I don't know where you're getting your info from. Maybe not exclusively to the millenial crowd, but people in Iowa and Pennsylvania love her. She did a great job on that semi-townhall recently where she answered all the immigration questions and positioned left of Obama. Mitt Romney would have easily become the awkward penguin that he actually is in such a free-standing forum and burst into a rendition of America the beautiful.

People don't really care if you're a millionaire as long as you don't come off patronizing.

 

[Wilsongt]

How? Are they denying that they deliberately try to make the poor look bad?

Saying it was in poor taste and beneath the dignity of the office.

 

[CygnusXS]

Saying it was in poor taste and beneath the dignity of the office.

Did they miss the Correspondents' Dinner?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Just a pointer on eliteness/likeability. Both Romney and the Clintons are filthy rich, but Romney is an out of touch cyborg. Remember all the Robo Romney OS reboot jokes? He can never cross the "I feel your pain" barrier. Hillary is very likeable. I don't know where you're getting your info from. Maybe not exclusively to the millenial crowd, but people in Iowa and Pennsylvania love her. She did a great job on that semi-townhall recently where she answered all the immigration questions and positioned left of Obama. Mitt Romney would have easily become the awkward penguin that he actually is in such a free-standing forum and burst into a rendition of America the beautiful.

People don't really care if you're a millionaire as long as you don't come off patronizing.

PD just wants Romney to run again and beat Clinton for vindication. A lot of Clinton's perceived flaws are heavy exaggerations by the media who need to compensate for how bad the GOP nominees are.

Personally I don't get all the hubba about Clinton being a weak candidate or whatever. If that were really the case she would have more than token opposition. Yes, the Clintons are well-connected which would keep a lot of their allies like Cuomo out of the race, but the Democrats would want to find someone else if there was any concern about her viability as a candidate, and they clearly don't. Her personal poll numbers have been quite resilient for the more than twenty years she's been a visible politician at the national level, and Obama's presidency being fairly solid thus far gives her a leg up. In short PD gonna PD

 

[thepotatoman]

Saying it was in poor taste and beneath the dignity of the office.

I see. So Obama's not allowed to criticize the organization devoted to criticizing Obama 24/7.