Is Romney still GOP frontrunner for 2016?

[HelmutKohl]

Just asking...

[XXXBizXXX]

Originally Posted by HelmutKohl

Just asking...

You think his name is Romney?

[Rochard]

Has a candidate ever run for President, lost, and then run again four or eight years later and won? (I'm not being smart, it's a serious question.)

I am surprised McCain is still in office. He pretty much embarrassed himself in front of the entire world yet somehow he is still around.

[jimmycooper]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Has a candidate ever run for President, lost, and then run again four or eight years later and won? (I'm not being smart, it's a serious question.)

I am surprised McCain is still in office. He pretty much embarrassed himself in front of the entire world yet somehow he is still around.

Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960 and then won it in 1968. He also lost a race for California governor at some point in between. Either 1962 or 1964.

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by jimmycooper

Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960 and then won it in 1968. He also lost a race for California governor at some point in between. Either 1962 or 1964.

Yup, this.

Also, Reagan ran and lost in 1968 and in 1976.

I would assume there are others.

Edit: To answer OP, Romney has no chance of being elected. If he is the nominee, the Republicans don't want to take the White House. Then again, what would really be different with a Republican administration? Are we suddenly going to have endless wars and an economy where mostly the rich the get richer and corporate welfare is the law of the land?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

Yup, this.

Also, Reagan ran and lost in 1968 and in 1976.

I would assume there are others.

Edit: To answer OP, Romney has no chance of being elected. If he is the nominee, the Republicans don't want to take the White House. Then again, what would really be different with a Republican administration? Are we suddenly going to have endless wars and an economy where mostly the rich the get richer and corporate welfare is the law of the land?

You can add in anti abortion laws, harder anti drug stance of states that choose for themselves and also dumbing down school children with creationism and pretending that teens won't ever have sex until marriage, so we can toss sex education to save tax dollars..

But hey maybe they would finally secure our boarders, balance the budget and fix health insurance while making sure no embassy is ever attacked nor Anymore terrorist attacks..

[TeenCat]

new bladerunner 2016? woohoo cant wait!

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Has a candidate ever run for President, lost, and then run again four or eight years later and won? (I'm not being smart, it's a serious question.)

Did someone do that 12 or more years later? Not being smart, just curious since you specified 4-8.

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by crockett

You can add in anti abortion laws, harder anti drug stance of states that choose for themselves and also dumbing down school children with creationism and pretending that teens won't ever have sex until marriage, so we can toss sex education to save tax dollars..

But hey maybe they would finally secure our boarders, balance the budget and fix health insurance while making sure no embassy is ever attacked nor Anymore terrorist attacks..

I live in California and the DEA, under the Obama administration, has kicked in the doors of plenty of businesses which are legal here. While there are photos of the President allegedly smoking pot and he seems cool, this administration has not factually done anything different from what a Republican probably would.

Abortion is the right wing version of gay marriage. Another one of those issues where, if we had a Republican administration, they'd sound really down on it. There would be lots of sounds bites, like they were stamping it out. But the legality of abortion would not change a bit.

Seriously, wouldn't you like to have a government which actually gave you the change you were hoping for? Are you really happy with what we have because you believe that Republicans would be crazy town cartoon characters spouting nonsense about the stork bringing babies on the back of a dinosaur?

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

Did someone do that 12 or more years later? Not being smart, just curious since you specified 4-8.

Reagan as mentioned above.

[bronco67]

Republicans are just stupid enough to run him again...because they always try the same shit over and over expecting the same result. Look at trickle down economics. It's their gold standard bread and butter ideology --- yet it has never worked.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

I live in California and the DEA, under the Obama administration, has kicked in the doors of plenty of businesses which are legal here. While there are photos of the President allegedly smoking pot and he seems cool, this administration has not factually done anything different from what a Republican probably would.

Abortion is the right wing version of gay marriage. Another one of those issues where, if we had a Republican administration, they'd sound really down on it. There would be lots of sounds bites, like they were stamping it out. But the legality of abortion would not change a bit.

Seriously, wouldn't you like to have a government which actually gave you the change you were hoping for? Are you really happy with what we have because you believe that Republicans would be crazy town cartoon characters spouting nonsense about the stork bringing babies on the back of a dinosaur?

Never waste your time debating anything with crockett, he always gets the last word usually giving a negative republican example instead of admitting a democrat or democratic policy might be wrong. He might be smart but that's always negated by his blatant tunnel vision. Guy's a fanatic of the worst kind.


.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Has a candidate ever run for President, lost, and then run again four or eight years later and won? (I'm not being smart, it's a serious question.)

I am surprised McCain is still in office. He pretty much embarrassed himself in front of the entire world yet somehow he is still around.

McCain needs to go quietly into that long goodnight and stfu forever.

In other news though, I'll be $50 that flip-flopin' Romney will run again. He just can't help himself. I can't wait to watch Hillary wipe the floor with him.

[baggg]

[arock10]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

Yup, this.

Also, Reagan ran and lost in 1968 and in 1976.

I would assume there are others.

Edit: To answer OP, Romney has no chance of being elected. If he is the nominee, the Republicans don't want to take the White House. Then again, what would really be different with a Republican administration? Are we suddenly going to have endless wars and an economy where mostly the rich the get richer and corporate welfare is the law of the land?

I'm not a scientist, but Reagan is baby Jesus therefore it's impossible for him to lose

[HelmutKohl]

[Vendzilla]

At least Romney had a plan, like him or not. I listen to the others and they are somewhat confused as to what to do to get the economy back on track.

I think it's funny that democrats are always saying he wrote Obamacare, yet bash him over and over because of something he said at a private party

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by jimmycooper

Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960 and then won it in 1968. He also lost a race for California governor at some point in between. Either 1962 or 1964.

Well, we all know how that worked out.

[LAJ]

I hope so!

Frontrunner will change a dozen times though over the next year +

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by arock10

I'm not a scientist, but Reagan is baby Jesus therefore it's impossible for him to lose

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

Yup, this.

Also, Reagan ran and lost in 1968 and in 1976.

I think I knew this in the back of my mind....

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

Edit: To answer OP, Romney has no chance of being elected. If he is the nominee, the Republicans don't want to take the White House. Then again, what would really be different with a Republican administration? Are we suddenly going to have endless wars and an economy where mostly the rich the get richer and corporate welfare is the law of the land?

I do not believe the Republican party made a serious attempt to reclaim the White House.

When we all set aside our political differences, there is no denying that the last few years of the Bush White House destroyed the US and bought us and the rest of the world to it's knees with the economy. There was so many vacant homes in my neighborhood it was a ghost town - it was strange. When they put up McCain against Obama they knew they were going to loose; McCain was a throwaway. It didn't matter who the Democrat party ran they would have won; Obama had a less than impressive track record and his single best quality was that he wasn't a Republican.

Romeny wasn't much better. Romeny wasn't the solution, he was the problem. Romney took other's people money, bought companies, charged massive "management fees" (massive!) while running companies into the ground. It's a beautiful business model - It doesn't matter if you are successful or not, you make money either way. It's just like Trump who borrows billions to build a huge project, runs it and charges huge fees, and then walks away as it fails... He looses nothing but made millions. This was exactly what the banks were doing - They were loaning out money that didn't belong to them, and making money no matter what happened. If someone defaulted on the house the banks only stood to make more money.

But what the Republican party didn't factor in what that no matter who was in the White House... Things were going to get better - a lot better. The only thing to fix our economy was time, and eight years is plenty of time. Unemployment is down, the economy is booming... Are we making as much money as before? Nope, of course not. The value of everything has been reduced. Yet we still walk around with our thousand dollar cell phones and the local movies are so fucking busy on weekends that you have to show up an hour early just to get parking.

The next election is going to be really fun to watch.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

I live in California and the DEA, under the Obama administration, has kicked in the doors of plenty of businesses which are legal here. While there are photos of the President allegedly smoking pot and he seems cool, this administration has not factually done anything different from what a Republican probably would.

Abortion is the right wing version of gay marriage. Another one of those issues where, if we had a Republican administration, they'd sound really down on it. There would be lots of sounds bites, like they were stamping it out. But the legality of abortion would not change a bit.

Seriously, wouldn't you like to have a government which actually gave you the change you were hoping for? Are you really happy with what we have because you believe that Republicans would be crazy town cartoon characters spouting nonsense about the stork bringing babies on the back of a dinosaur?

I never said he didn't, and yes he was wrong when he did that. However he did back off and did allow the states to do what they voted to do. Do you think Mitt Romney or John McCain would have also backed off?

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by crockett

I never said he didn't, and yes he was wrong when he did that. However he did back off and did allow the states to do what they voted to do. Do you think Mitt Romney or John McCain would have also backed off?

Obama promised to tell the DEA to lay off dispensaries. He broke that promise. Eventually more states voted for legalization. Federal law has not changed. The Obama administration used Operation Chokepoint to force dispensaries to keep cash on hand by denying them access to banks. Either way, someone would be trying to kick their doors in -- DEA or robbers.

Romney or McCain would probably have promised to crack down on the dispensaries. Then budget would dictate that they would break that promise and raid the same number Obama's administration did. Federal law would not have changed. Operation Chokepoint probably still would have happened.

What difference do you think it would have made? I don't see any, beyond the cosmetics of what the President gives insincere lip service to.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by bronco67

Look at trickle down economics. yet it has never worked.

"Trickle Down Economics" is a term coined by humorist Will Rogers to describe the "New Deal" of Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
He described it as the "rich pissing down on the poor".

What Reagan did (and what Republicans "claim" to be for) is SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS:
"Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital."

Has nothing to do with "trickle down economics" which was "The New Deal" of FDR.

I think the misconception was caused by the media in the 1980's mislabeling it out of their ignorance. And now generations of people have grown up with that wrong definition.