Skip to comments.Freindly Fire: Why Romney will lose to Obama
Posted on 03/30/2012 6:09:03 AM PDT by Josh Painter
Being in the media, I have no friends, as it should be. If I did, however, 3 of 10 Republicans would surely take offense to this column, since it points out what is increasingly obvious to everyone but Mitt Romneys 30 percent base of support: Mitt wont beat Barack Obama.
Should Romney become the GOP nominee - likely, but not certain - he will have a difficult time unseating the President. Can he win? Given the stagnant economy, high unemployment, and skyrocketing gas prices, yes. But will he? No.
Since many Republicans are calling this election the most important in history, its worth a look at why Romney will fall short:
1) He cannot relate. Nominating Romney would be par for the course for a GOP that likes to elevate stiff, out-of-touch pols who cant relate to most Americans. John McCain, Bob Dole, and George Bush I (after he acted like he had better things to do than campaign for reelection) are prime examples.
Of course, it is rare for an incumbent president to lose, which occurred only four times in the 20th century. But in those instances, sitting presidents lost to charismatic leaders articulating bold visions. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton achieved success over Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush, because, more than anything, they were extremely effective communicators, speaking from the heart rather than a script. There was a widespread perception among Americans that these candidates were talking directly to them - that they were leaders who innately understood what the problems were, and how to solve them.
On a scale of one to 10, Romneys ability in this regard is zero. Not only is he unable to relate, but when he tries, things gets worse...
(Excerpt) Read more at delcotimes.com ...
Iowa and New Hampshire seem to eternally set our nomination process up as a contest between a Christian right favorite and a RINO golden boy, with the crony capitalist Wall Street donors breaking the tie for whichever candidate is most likely to promise them a steady flow of tax breaks and bailout cash. Common sense conservatism doesn't stand a chance.
It was a typo, you jackass, and I corrected it below. So stuff it.
Go look at Real CLEAR Politics and you will see that what I said was true.
You really didn’t think Newt would poll well, did you? LOLOL
Romney would win easy unless the far right joins team Obama. There is much to debate about Romney but much more so regarding Obama and his stewardship of the SS USA. If some how the we on the right side of the spectrum (no matter how close to the center right or far right) allow Obama another term in which I must live another 4 precious years of my life I will join the ranks of those whom leave the party for a (I) or (L) next to my name. I know there is a purest swagger here at FR and I carry that same swagger in my life but I also live in a realistic world where our representatives will have too lead us ALL. And fact is we are ALL not the same in this country across that entire spectrum. If we hold Congress, gain the Senate and have even a moderate at the helm we ALL win.....
Except white voters are a lower percentage than they were in Nixon's time, right? Maybe this could make the Hispanics more skeptical of Obama though if the media stops calling Zimmerman "white." Problem is these issues are forgotten so fast and unlike the contraception deal, the Republicans can't exactly bring up Zimmerman in a campaign ad.
If Obama puts the entire Strategic Petroleum Reserve on the open market in October, does he have to count that as an in-kind campaign contribution from the U.S. Treasury?
Except it's NOT true! I don't know if you're clicking on some alternate universe internet but the real clear politics I visited just a minute ago currently has Obama beating Romney by an average of 5 points and Obama beating Santorum by an average of 8.1 points.
But, that's what happens in our 1.5 party system.
And that's what we've come to expect from a party that is far more interested in the other party's opinion and good will than that of their own base.
More and more, it looks like the Tea party infusion isn't going to ease the GOPe's death grip on the ailing party.
If that's how it goes, it will take a third party to give us an actual two party system once again.
Bottom line? I can't/won't vote for mitt romney.
I've used up whatever it was that let me vote that way after voting for Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush and, *shudder* John McCain. It's all gone.
I don't think the GOPe wants to win this one anyway. They see the progressive/obama made disaster that's coming and they want all the pain, misery and blame to fall on obama, Reid, Pelousy and the rest of the demonrats.
Then, assuming their is a country that survives the second term of obama, the republican calvary rides in to save us.
Which is fundamentally irrational, is it not? If they're not excited about Romney and no one they know is excited about Romney, who do they think is going to be excited about him in November? Their mythical, stereotypical, fantasy image of what an "independent" voter is? Since when did the average voter become an expert at reading the minds in the future of people they've never met?
Tragic, even dangerous, that we’re coming down to that. The anti-Romney crowd, stuck with him as the best viable choice, is relegated to either voting “ABO” or failing to act against the greater evil.
Voting the lesser of two evils sucks because you still get evil. Accelerating toward economic ruin is a bad time for a “go along to get along”, “don’t disrupt things too much” candidate, preferable only because the alternative is keeping the maniac who is accelerating toward the cliff with an evil laugh (knowing he has the only parachute).
Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah! Draft Sarah!
I didn’t say they were polling ahead of Obama. I said that that was the order they were in up against Obama this morning. That may have changed. I was looking at the March 29th polls.
And really, I think any of them could beat Obama in a fair race. Obama stinks, and the crap he has been pulling this week is not a plus for Obama.
From the article:
“While it will be a bitter pill to swallow, those on the Right would be wise to realize two things. The Anyone But Obama approach is a losing strategy, since negative premises always produce inferior candidates.”
Romney is about as “inferior” as we can find. I won’t vote for him. Not now, not in November, not EVER!
it’s the guy’s name. hence the column name. chris freind
Yes. I agree. The Republican party is letting the most liberal states like New Hampshire pick our candidates.
I encourage all to write to their congressman, state and national GOP chairs and tell them that you will not vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstances. . . .
I will vote for any Republican against ANY Democrat, Period.
I’m surely not sure Romney can beat Obama. I’m not sure that anybody could bead Obama but, I really don’t think Newt Gingrich could beat Obama. I once thought Santorum could but he has now exposed himself as a foot eater.
There is little hope that there will be a Republican President, but, hope or not I will vote for any Republican over Any Democrat.
I won’t encourage the GOP to screw conservatives again.
Freindly is a takeoff on his name.
The proper word is “advice.”
OK, Romney is not a Marxist. But he's far too much of a statist to be counted a true free enterprise person. His only quibble is about whether the feds, the state, or cities and towns should rule. Even in his much-touted Olympics (still don't know what that was all about) and Bain experience, not to mention his experience as MA governor, he's a huge fan of gov't bailout, gov't subsidies, gov't in general, especially where it can be lobbied to further his own interests (as in the "carried interest" that let's him pay the 15% capital gains rate on income that isn't).
Of course you will.
There seem to be a lot of people on this site who are perfectly content with letting the Republican elites force another liberal down our throats since he's not Baraq.
Not by name, anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.