Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Could Romney run in 2016, following Nixon's example? (vanity)
Nov 9, 2012 | Zhang Fei

Posted on 11/09/2012 4:38:36 AM PST by Zhang Fei

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-139 last
To: Zhang Fei

I learned to like Romney in the end, but for a variety of reasons he did not bring out the base. He attracted less votes than Palin did in 2008. Too bad the GOP-e did not use the Palin magic in 2012. The GOP-e has no clue how to attract its base. Zero!


101 posted on 11/09/2012 6:24:44 AM PST by Chgogal (Obama helped murder US Navy SEALs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
However, I keep remembering the piece I read somewhere which plainly stated that, as a candidate for office, Romney was (and sadly remains) a big time loser.

My sense is that he did not want it badly enough, and underestimated the amount of detailed knowledge and political skills it takes to win office. I get the impression that politically-speaking, he's a part-timer rather than someone who's deeply engaged in the minutia. He is a great family man whose children have benefited from his attention and guidance. The nation, however, has suffered from his inattention to politics, that culminated in his defeat in 2012.

In contrast, Reagan was an aloof father whose life's work wasn't raising his children; it was figuring out how to raise this nation out of the disasters of the 60's and the 70's, and how to get in a position to implement his preferred policies. As a result, several of Reagan's children have turned out pretty dysfunctional, and it's clear that this must have been a source of pain for him. In retrospect, we owe Reagan a great deal for the personal sacrifices he made on the road to the presidency, so that we could have the decade that slowed down the economic death spiral which was simply a matter of time once FDR initiated the New Deal.

102 posted on 11/09/2012 6:25:28 AM PST by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

That’s what we said this time


103 posted on 11/09/2012 6:41:45 AM PST by Gil4 (Progressives - Trying to repeal the Law of Supply and Demand since 1848)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: keckkw
Close to 4 million conservatives stayed home because he was a moderate.

Short-sighted thinking, because that probably cost us the Senate as well. That did more harm than reelecting the Marxist.

104 posted on 11/09/2012 6:44:00 AM PST by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Mr. Romney, like Rove, was in it for the $$$$$$$$$$$$ only.

Backstabber Rove made an estimated 50 to 200 million from the
disaster. So watch for him to eagerly repeat it.

America is so screwed that the GOP did not listen.


105 posted on 11/09/2012 6:44:05 AM PST by Diogenesis (Vi veri veniversum vivus vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Triple

RINO Romney and backstabber Rove did not even
let Ms. Palin SPEAK. And the result is they
are richer, and all America is poorer.


106 posted on 11/09/2012 6:45:06 AM PST by Diogenesis (Vi veri veniversum vivus vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
Romney dusted off Thomas Dewey's 1948 playbook and ran on not being offensive and not making mistakes. Just like Dewey, he went down to a vulnerable president in a terrible economy. In 1948 Truman lost nearly 1.5 million votes compared to the dem votes for FDR in 1944. Given the total votes cast (around 50 million) that's quite a lot. It works out to losing 6% of the votes than FDR had in 1944. On the other hand Dewey lost a small sliver, less than a percent. But he didn't gain any votes; people didn't come out for Truman but they didn't give their votes to Dewey either. And he lost.

Why Romney chose that model we will never know for sure but I'd be willing to bet that the same guy who suggested to W that he should ignore the critics and not respond may have influenced it. Karl Rove, losing elections for everyone but Bush since 2000.

107 posted on 11/09/2012 6:45:38 AM PST by pepsi_junkie (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Stop smoking crack! Romney was a horrible candidate. Not only was he not a true conservative, but he’s a member of a religious cult (Mormonism) which is NOT a Christian faith!!!


108 posted on 11/09/2012 6:54:49 AM PST by islamisasataniclie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Does anyone FORCE a company to offer coupons? I thought not. But the modern American electorate is likely to DEMAND that companies offer them coupons or else...

Taking advantage of an offered lower price is not wrong. Demanding government take from others by force and give to you is evil.


109 posted on 11/09/2012 7:05:21 AM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: adc
-"And how in the heck do we implement that? What will it take to do that in every state?"

We can't, unless we get rid of all the RATs and have Republican "conservative" majorities in those states. Which means, then, that we're screwed.

110 posted on 11/09/2012 7:15:10 AM PST by LibFreeUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

agreed


111 posted on 11/09/2012 7:15:30 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: islamisasataniclie
he’s a member of a religious cult (Mormonism) which is NOT a Christian faith!!!

It's ironic to read such comments on a website called free republic. Our forefathers risked their lives and livelihood for religious freedom. Somehow the intolerance they sought to escape crossed the ocean with them.

112 posted on 11/09/2012 7:32:31 AM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: TennesseeProfessor

No hope a’tall until someone emerges with the balls to respond like Reagan when being dissed by the media.

My favorite political moments were when Ron would smile, shake his head and say “Well, (insert name of lamestream would-be character assassin), there you go again, but .....”

I think the REAL difference between Reagan and the rest of the pitiful candidates the GOP has been running of late is the personal goals of the men in question.

I TRULY believe that Reagan’s goal was to help this country, even to the extent that he ran the milktoast, NWO promoting GHWB as his running mate in order to mend fences within the party.

The goal of the rest of the bunch has been to get elected POTUS.

And, don’t give the kneejerk BS about “ya have to get elected first”.

Reagan got elected BECAUSE his goal permeated his personality AND his campaign, not because he wanted to be POTUS.

THAT’s why Obamination got elected - he has also convinced the sheeple that he GENUINELY wants to help this country (including the “... I’ll be a one term president” statement).


113 posted on 11/09/2012 7:41:37 AM PST by CanuckYank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dead

LOL

Right now I’m not even seriously thinking about 2016; I still haven’t gotten over Tuesday. I can think of only two people I’d want to run: Allen West or Mark Levin. Both are pure fantasy, so who cares.


114 posted on 11/09/2012 7:43:48 AM PST by CatherineofAragon (The idiocracy has come home to roost. God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
NO…NO…a thousand times no…in succession I’ve had to pinch my nose for:
Bush
Dole
Bush
McCain
Romney

....that my nose now resembles Michael Jackson nose prosthesis!!


115 posted on 11/09/2012 7:51:48 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Romney couldn’t beat Obama?

Romney didn’t beat McCain.

Disgraceful. A billion dollar campaign? What did Republicans get for their money?

McCain, 2008 popular vote: 58,319,442

Romney, 2012 popular vote: 58,163,978

That is the biggest fact of this election and no one is talking about it.


116 posted on 11/09/2012 8:13:19 AM PST by gandalftb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

NO WAY!!!!!!!!


117 posted on 11/09/2012 8:16:01 AM PST by knife6375 (US Navy Veteran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morris70
If you just count candidates who were nominated by a major party, not potential nominees, the only time since 1892 that a candidate who had earlier lost an election came back to win is Richard Nixon in 1968.

Before that the only real cases are William Henry Harrison in 1840 and Grover Cleveland in 1892 (and he was a former President who had a plurality of the popular vote in 1888). Andrew Jackson won in 1828 after losing in 1824 but that was in the interval between the end of the first party system (Federalist vs. Republican) and the rise of the second party system (Whig vs. Democrat), and the winner of that election had to be selected by the House of Representatives.

The elections before 1804 don't count because the second-highest vote-winner became Vice President.

118 posted on 11/09/2012 8:43:37 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Romney could only run now if he had Sarah Palin for backbone


119 posted on 11/09/2012 9:08:43 AM PST by The Wizard (Madam President is my President now and in the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John O

“The last time we ran a conservtaive was Ronald Reagan. He won in the biggest landslide we’ve ever seen.”

Yes, but don’t forget that he won such a landslide, in part, because he was able to attract/convert “Reagan Democrats.” He was able to do so because, on top of being a true conservative, he was also the “Great Communicator” - in other words, he was able to communicate his conservative principles (and, more geneay, his vision for the future of America) to all Americans.

One problem with our modern political culture (gerrymandered districts, the internet, the pretty sharp divide between conservative and liberal media, etc.) is that today’s conservatives do not need to be good at selling their ideas to people who do not already self- identify as conservatives ( and believe me, there are plenty of people who hold conservative beliefs on the issues, but do not necessarily view themselves as ‘conservatives,’ so to speak). The next Reagan (if that person exists) will need to be able to do that).


120 posted on 11/09/2012 9:40:14 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Redmen4ever

And that’s another good point AGAINST Romney’s campaign. The GOTV, particularly the GOT-Base effort was pitiful...OBVIOUSLY.


121 posted on 11/09/2012 9:41:01 AM PST by NELSON111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: John O

“The last time we ran a conservtaive was Ronald Reagan. He won in the biggest landslide we’ve ever seen.”

Yes, but don’t forget that he won such a landslide, in part, because he was able to attract/convert “Reagan Democrats.” He was able to do so because, on top of being a true conservative, he was also the “Great Communicator” - in other words, he was able to communicate his conservative principles (and, more geneay, his vision for the future of America) to all Americans.

One problem with our modern political culture (gerrymandered districts, the internet, the pretty sharp divide between conservative and liberal media, etc.) is that today’s conservatives do not need to be good at selling their ideas to people who do not already self- identify as conservatives ( and believe me, there are plenty of people who hold conservative beliefs on the issues, but do not necessarily view themselves as ‘conservatives,’ so to speak). The next Reagan (if that person exists) will need to be able to do that).


122 posted on 11/09/2012 9:43:49 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Sadly, with the media as it is, had Santorum won the nomination, he would have lost the election the moment that idiot Akin opened his mouth back in September.


123 posted on 11/09/2012 9:54:38 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Reagan ran for president in 1968, 1976, and 1980.

Thanks.

124 posted on 11/09/2012 10:25:17 AM PST by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA

Yes. We are. But you know what. . . so is everyone else. I’ve doing the last of my charitable giving with Sandy relief. No more after that. No cookie buying, no raffle tickets, no car washes, no volunteering, nothing but taking care of my own family and our own needs. Done with it. I’m happy to let the government take care of them all.


125 posted on 11/09/2012 11:57:41 AM PST by adc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
MEGA. EPIC. FAIL.
126 posted on 11/09/2012 1:23:52 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fso301

In Fact Reagan got more votes than Nixon in 1968 because Reagan won California, the only primary state he won that year.


127 posted on 11/09/2012 3:59:59 PM PST by Perdogg (Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA4) for President 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601
Maybe Romney shouldn’t have been the nominee, but nobody that ran would have done any better.

I do agree with that assessment, and I probably said as much a few times here on FreeRepublic at the time. Not only that, but some of those candidates would have been a complete disaster (Gingrich, for example). I like your analogy of the three-legged stool, too.

128 posted on 11/09/2012 5:08:22 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
If you just count candidates who were nominated by a major party, not potential nominees, the only time since 1892 that a candidate who had earlier lost an election came back to win is Richard Nixon in 1968.

That's a very interesting point. But how many times did a candidate who had earlier lost an election even bothered to come back and try again? Nobody other than Nixon comes to mind, but Walter Mondale and Bob Dole are two guys who have pulled off the unusual "exacta" of losing once as a VP candidate (Dole in 1976 as Ford's running mate and Mondale in 1980 on the Carter ticket) and later as a presidential candidate (Mondale in 1984 and Dole in 1996).

129 posted on 11/09/2012 5:22:32 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Someone on TV tonight, I think it was Krauthammer, said he thought Romney should have picked Gingrich as his running mate to balance the ticket—a Mormon and a polygamist.


130 posted on 11/09/2012 5:40:38 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

I disagree with a lot of Krauthammer’s positions, but he’s really a smart guy and funny as all heck sometimes. LOL.


131 posted on 11/09/2012 5:47:32 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Only once has someone who was the losing VP candidate come back to win the Presidency--FDR, who was the VP nominee in 1920. That's not a good omen for Paul Ryan, who should, in my opinion, be seen as one of the best prospects for 2016.

Henry Clay ran for President three times--the third time he lost very narrowly and would have won the election if a third party candidate had not tipped New York into the Democratic column by draining off some votes that would have gone to Clay. William Jennings Bryan was the Democratic nominee three times, and 16 years after his third try the Democrats put his brother on the ticket as their VP candidate (in the election in which the Democrats got their lowest percentage of the vote ever, if you exclude the four-way race in 1860 when there were two Democrats running).

More recently, Thomas Dewey was nominated again in 1948 after losing in 1944, and Adlai Stevenson was nominated again in 1956 after losing in 1952. Hubert Humphrey was one of the primary candidates in 1976 after losing in 1968. George Wallace ran again in 1972 after losing as a third party candidate in 1968 (it was in 1972 that he was shot). H. Ross Perot, of course, ran again in 1996 after running in 1992. Ronald Reagan ran unsuccessfully twice before becoming the nominee in 1980. Gore ran in 1988 before being the Democratic nominee in 2000. McCain ran first in 2000 and of course Romney ran in 2008. I think Dole was an also-ran once before he was the nominee.

132 posted on 11/09/2012 5:54:19 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: John O

I definitely agree, especially about “swing voters” voting for whomever is strong. people like who they perceive to be a winner. the swing voters want to vote for the winner.
I also agree that this tippy-toeing around, trying not to offend or whatever is just ridiculous.


133 posted on 11/09/2012 6:07:23 PM PST by visualops (artlife.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
Excellent historical perspective, VR.

I disagree with you about Ryan, though. He's a smart and likeable guy, but I don't think he's well suited for a White House run -- at least not yet. House members rarely make good presidential candidates, and in that respect he'd do well to run for the governor's office in Wisconsin before launching a presidential bid.

In retrospect, he probably wasn't a very good VP selection by the Romney camp. He didn't even bring his own state into the Republican column, and the GOP probably would have done better to nominate someone who appealed to a wider demographic group. Ironically, the VP position is such a useless spot that Ryan's talents probably would have been wasted -- and as the chairman of the House budget committee he was probably the only guy in the GOP on Tuesday who woke up on Wednesday morning in a better position than he would have been if he had "won."

134 posted on 11/09/2012 6:08:42 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

I’m still counting Reagan and G.H.Bush .
They ran to get nomination and lost then later came back and won.
See your points though. Especially earlier yrs.

Lincoln was anti war and Jackson was pro war.
Lincoln like most republican believers back then were against Spanish American war.
Lincoln countered that he supported the troops because he voted to provide them boots.


135 posted on 11/10/2012 3:58:00 AM PST by Morris70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I wish I could claim the 3 legged stool analogy, but I didn’t make it up. It cam from Reagan actually.


136 posted on 11/10/2012 5:50:19 AM PST by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: sneakers

sneakers suggests: Mike Pence

Keep an eye to make sure he’s not another police state bush operative like mitch daniels was. Indiana isn’t all it’s said to be.


137 posted on 11/11/2012 8:11:28 PM PST by Kenneth J. Conner (Rezko for Radicals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: jocon307

//However, I keep remembering the piece I read somewhere which plainly stated that, as a candidate for office, Romney was (and sadly remains) a big time loser.

haaa haaa ha ha well said.


138 posted on 11/11/2012 8:11:53 PM PST by Kenneth J. Conner (Rezko for Radicals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane

So now speaking the truth is intolerant? This is liberal madness. It is a fact that the Mormon church has extremely heretical theology which makes it NOT Christian! There are some core things you MUST believe in order to be a Christian church and one of them is the deity of Christ WHICH MORMONS DENY! What’s next call Muslims call themselves Christians too and we must “tolerantly” accept it? You need a history lesson. They escaped religious persecution which was almost always being carried out by the state. No one is PERSECUTING Mormons by stating that they are not a Christian church.


139 posted on 11/20/2012 1:07:49 AM PST by islamisasataniclie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-139 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson