Mitt Romney 2020?

[snafu]

I think there's a very good chance Romney looks at making an independent run at the White House. He's got the money to do it. Especially with this op-ed piece. The timing is obvious, and he needs to get into the spotlight in a relatively short period of time to gauge whether he's got a shot. 

 

I also think there's a very good chance that the Democrats might see an independent split off from the pack and try a run. 

 

We might see a four candidate race in 2020. 

 

Then the Electoral College debate will flare up big time, because it would be likely that nobody gets to 270. 

 

Chaos!  All because Trump beat Clinton in 2016. 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, snafu said:

I think there's a very good chance Romney looks at making an independent run at the White House. He's got the money to do it. Especially with this op-ed piece. The timing is obvious, and he needs to get into the spotlight in a relatively short period of time to gauge whether he's got a shot. 

 

I also think there's a very good chance that the Democrats might see an independent split off from the pack and try a run. 

 

We might see a four candidate race in 2020. 

 

Then the Electoral College debate will flare up big time, because it would be likely that nobody gets to 270. 

 

Chaos!  All because Trump beat Clinton in 2016. 

 

 

Not personally.

[Foxx]

19 minutes ago, snafu said:

I think there's a very good chance Romney looks at making an independent run at the White House. He's got the money to do it. Especially with this op-ed piece. The timing is obvious, and he needs to get into the spotlight in a relatively short period of time to gauge whether he's got a shot. 

 

I also think there's a very good chance that the Democrats might see an independent split off from the pack and try a run. 

 

We might see a four candidate race in 2020. 

 

Then the Electoral College debate will flare up big time, because it would be likely that nobody gets to 270. 

 

Chaos!  All because Trump beat Clinton in 2016. 

 

 

Romney will never win a Presidential election. that being said...

Trump wins a 2 man race

[insert Democrat] wins a 3 man race

Trump wins a 4 man race

Edited January 2, 2019 by Foxx

[Tiberius]

27 minutes ago, snafu said:

I think there's a very good chance Romney looks at making an independent run at the White House. He's got the money to do it. Especially with this op-ed piece. The timing is obvious, and he needs to get into the spotlight in a relatively short period of time to gauge whether he's got a shot. 

 

I also think there's a very good chance that the Democrats might see an independent split off from the pack and try a run. 

 

We might see a four candidate race in 2020. 

 

Then the Electoral College debate will flare up big time, because it would be likely that nobody gets to 270. 

 

Chaos!  All because Trump beat Clinton in 2016. 

 

 

Nancy Pelosi's House will pick the next President? 

 

 

[whatdrought]

Yes. Romney who couldn't beat a horrible incumbent from the opposite party is going to take down an incumbent from his party. This seems likely. 

[B-Man]

IN RE: ROMNEY

by Steven Hayward

Everyone is buzzing today about Mitt Romney’s op-ed criticizing Trump in the Bezos Bulletin. (This, after seeking Trump’s endorsement for the Senate in Utah, and treating with Trump in 2016 to be secretary of state.) The piece has that “more-in-sorrow-than-anger” tone that Trump’s crude manners are unbecoming of a president, and may degrade our democratic culture.

 

Perhaps this is so. I’m less interested in becoming the 10,000th voice on this issue and more interested in drawing attention to just one paragraph in the article that cries out for closer notice:

It is not that all of the president’s policies have been misguided. He was right to align U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors, to strip out excessive regulations, to crack down on China’s unfair trade practices, to reform criminal justice and to appoint conservative judges. These are policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years.

I boldfaced “promoted” because Romney has unwittingly provided the devastating argument against his style of Republicanism. Yes, it is quite true that nearly all Republican presidential candidates—and presidents—have promoted tax reform, lower regulation, getting tough with China, and appointing better judges (and add in moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem), if by “promoted” you mean giving lip service to the ideas.

 

None of them have delivered on these “promoted” ideas (Reagan excepted, of course). The two presidents Bush botched judicial appointments, extended regulation, delivered little in the way of serious tax or spending reform, and did nothing serious with regard to China. I wish Romney had defeated Obama in 2012, but does anyone think this Massachusetts technocrat, who gave us the state-level version of Obamacare in the Bay State, signed up for a regional climate change cap-and-trade scheme, who appointed the egregious Gina McCarthy (Obama’s second EPA administrator) to be his environmental adviser, and appointed state judges who struck the first judicial blows for same-sex marriage, would have governed as a serious conservative had he won?

 

The point is, Trump has proved that “mainstream Republicanism” was a colossal failure. Whereas Bush-Romney Republicans “promoted” good ideas, Trump has delivered on them.

 

I’ll restate once again that I think Trump is, in Wall Street terms, a “high-beta presidency”—high risk, high reward. I wish he was more prudent and measured in the fights he picks and how he conducts himself. He remains his own worst enemy. I fear Trump’s presidency could end disastrously for conservatism.

 

But in the meantime he has mounted the most vigorous challenge to liberalism of anyone since Reagan, under much more difficult political circumstances. We know what we’re going to get from Trump. From Romney, Jeb Bush, or John Kasich, we have no such confidence. Romney should just get to work at being a good senator, and stop the posturing. Or to paraphrase Don Rumsfeld’s most famous remark, we have to go into political battle with the president we have, rather than the president we wish he had.

 

 

 

 

.

 

.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 minutes ago, B-Man said:

IN RE: ROMNEY

by Steven Hayward

Everyone is buzzing today about Mitt Romney’s op-ed criticizing Trump in the Bezos Bulletin. (This, after seeking Trump’s endorsement for the Senate in Utah, and treating with Trump in 2016 to be secretary of state.) The piece has that “more-in-sorrow-than-anger” tone that Trump’s crude manners are unbecoming of a president, and may degrade our democratic culture.

 

Perhaps this is so. I’m less interested in becoming the 10,000th voice on this issue and more interested in drawing attention to just one paragraph in the article that cries out for closer notice:

It is not that all of the president’s policies have been misguided. He was right to align U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors, to strip out excessive regulations, to crack down on China’s unfair trade practices, to reform criminal justice and to appoint conservative judges. These are policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years.

I boldfaced “promoted” because Romney has unwittingly provided the devastating argument against his style of Republicanism. Yes, it is quite true that nearly all Republican presidential candidates—and presidents—have promoted tax reform, lower regulation, getting tough with China, and appointing better judges (and add in moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem), if by “promoted” you mean giving lip service to the ideas.

 

None of them have delivered on these “promoted” ideas (Reagan excepted, of course). The two presidents Bush botched judicial appointments, extended regulation, delivered little in the way of serious tax or spending reform, and did nothing serious with regard to China. I wish Romney had defeated Obama in 2012, but does anyone think this Massachusetts technocrat, who gave us the state-level version of Obamacare in the Bay State, signed up for a regional climate change cap-and-trade scheme, who appointed the egregious Gina McCarthy (Obama’s second EPA administrator) to be his environmental adviser, and appointed state judges who struck the first judicial blows for same-sex marriage, would have governed as a serious conservative had he won?

 

The point is, Trump has proved that “mainstream Republicanism” was a colossal failure. Whereas Bush-Romney Republicans “promoted” good ideas, Trump has delivered on them.

 

I’ll restate once again that I think Trump is, in Wall Street terms, a “high-beta presidency”—high risk, high reward. I wish he was more prudent and measured in the fights he picks and how he conducts himself. He remains his own worst enemy. I fear Trump’s presidency could end disastrously for conservatism.

 

But in the meantime he has mounted the most vigorous challenge to liberalism of anyone since Reagan, under much more difficult political circumstances. We know what we’re going to get from Trump. From Romney, Jeb Bush, or John Kasich, we have no such confidence. Romney should just get to work at being a good senator, and stop the posturing. Or to paraphrase Don Rumsfeld’s most famous remark, we have to go into political battle with the president we have, rather than the president we wish he had.

 

 

 

 

.

 

.

This is a good piece and spot on. When taken in context with his "Hate Trump, Love Trump, Hate Trump, Hey Trump will you buy me a milkshake at the local soda shop??", Romney is just  a guy who seems to be unsure who he should try and keep happy. Taken in the context of letting Obama off the mat when he was vulnerable, he's just another R loser who panders to the libs. 

 

 Dems will savage him for his waffling on Trump and everything else, and Trump will make them look like they went easy on him. 

 

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Things are gonna be awkward at the next extended family get together...

 

Mitt also did that opt-ed before the freshman committee assignments were completed. Hope that globalist paycheck is worth it. 

[keepthefaith]

Still think Romney should have mopped the floor with Obama in 2012 but our country can't discern campaign rhetoric and media bias from real priorities and the ability to lead and govern.  I believe Mitt would have done well in that regard.

 

Can't understand Romney's recent comments though.  Helps nobody including himself. 

[BeginnersMind]

1 hour ago, keepthefaith said:

Can't understand Romney's recent comments though.  Helps nobody including himself. 

 

Maybe he just said it because he believes it, ie, conviction.

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Mitt also did that opt-ed before the freshman committee assignments were completed. Hope that globalist paycheck is worth it. 

 

Boogeymen are everywhere. 

[Doc Brown]

 

1 hour ago, keepthefaith said:

Still think Romney should have mopped the floor with Obama in 2012 but our country can't discern campaign rhetoric and media bias from real priorities and the ability to lead and govern.  I believe Mitt would have done well in that regard.

 

Can't understand Romney's recent comments though.  Helps nobody including himself. 

The Bush administration's misfortunes combined with Obama's charisma made it pretty much impossible for Republicans to win the next two elections no matter who ran.  The Democrats don't have the "it" factor that Obama had with any of the candidate running for election thus far in 2020.  I can see another wooden character like John Kerry in 2006 winning the nominee and losing the general election.

[keepthefaith]

2 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

Maybe he just said it because he believes it, ie, conviction.

 

 

 

Fine, then meet with Trump and tell him directly rather than run it through the media. 

Edited January 3, 2019 by keepthefaith

[KD in CA]

3 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

Still think Romney should have mopped the floor with Obama in 2012 but our country can't discern campaign rhetoric and media bias from real priorities and the ability to lead and govern.  I believe Mitt would have done well in that regard.

 

Can't understand Romney's recent comments though.  Helps nobody including himself. 

 

Let's just start with......our country is largely comprised of morons.

 

Yeah, Mitt would be a good POTUS.   He'd be even better if he had the balls to articulate and own Trump's policies.

[BeginnersMind]

8 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Fine, then meet with Trump and tell him directly rather than run it through the media. 

 

Trump already knows what Romney thinks. This isn't his first foray into Trump criticism. 

 

Mitt is challenging others, mostly in his own party, to do better than Trump, while giving Trump some credit. It was an even critique by someone who is a leading figure in politics, his freshman status notwithstanding.

 

Whether he's doing it in general to inspire better behavior, or with a specific purpose (laying the groundwork for his or another's challenge to Trump), is something I don't know. But I applaud his convictions and it's nice to see people stand apart from blind party loyalty. I applaud Graham when he does it, and of course Paul does it all the time on the right. The left jibs and jabs all the time but usually over stupid PC malarky, though the rise of the far left is a new trend outside the party lockstep. 

10 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

 

The Bush administration's misfortunes combined with Obama's charisma made it pretty much impossible for Republicans to win the next two elections no matter who ran.  The Democrats don't have the "it" factor that Obama had with any of the candidate running for election thus far in 2020.  I can see another wooden character like John Kerry in 2006 winning the nominee and losing the general election.

 

Beto O'Rourke and Corey Booker are not wooden. Neither is Warren. Given the level of passion to come in the Dem primary, you won't get a stiff. Trump gave the primary blueprint: Speak to the unhinged. 

 

Edited January 3, 2019 by BeginnersMind

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Fine, then meet with Trump and tell him directly rather than run it through the media. 

Or at least figure out what your convictions are, and stop acting like  the moral majority when you achieve something, and a rock star groupie when you want something. 

 

 

[B-Man]

Romney: No, I’m not going to primary Trump

 

 

“You may have heard I ran before.”

 

 

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

[outsidethebox]

The only reason the dems want Romney to run is, they think they can beat Romney. The dems know they don't have a chance against Trump.

 

Six more years. Get used to it libs.....

[Swill Merchant]

1 minute ago, westside said:

The only reason the dems want Romney to run is, they think they can beat Romney. The dems know they don't have a chance against Trump.

 

Six more years. Get used to it libs.....

You never know. 2 years into the Bush presidency he looked unbeatable. Then he barely squeaked out a victory against what was then (and arguably still is) the worst Presidential ticket in the modern era.

 

A large segment of neo-cons who had warmed to him are turning against him again, and if the wall doesn't get built a lot of the hardcore MAGA crowd sours on him.

 

Plus, the Dems could run someone like Kamala Harris to turn out the black & virtue-signaler vote, and the "get out the vote" peer pressure is turning out a lot of apolitical people who vote & vote Dem to avoid the wrath of their aggressively liberal friends.

 

I hope he wins, but even if not he's accomplished what I wanted, which was a rebuild of the Republican party. And he exposed the Dems, leftist media, & SJWs for what they are. They can't put the mask back on.

[outsidethebox]

Just now, Swill Merchant said:

You never know. 2 years into the Bush presidency he looked unbeatable. Then he barely squeaked out a victory against what was then (and arguably still is) the worst Presidential ticket in the modern era.

 

A large segment of neo-cons who had warmed to him are turning against him again, and if the wall doesn't get built a lot of the hardcore MAGA crowd sours on him.

 

Plus, the Dems could run someone like Kamala Harris to turn out the black & virtue-signaler vote, and the "get out the vote" peer pressure is turning out a lot of apolitical people who vote & vote Dem to avoid the wrath of their aggressively liberal friends.

 

I hope he wins, but even if not he's accomplished what I wanted, which was a rebuild of the Republican party. And he exposed the Dems, leftist media, & SJWs for what they are. They can't put the mask back on.

I agree he's accomplished more in two years than Obama in eight. Harris, Booker, warren and whoever else they can dig up between now and 2020 have very little chance of beating him, IMHO. Just for the fact of what he's done already. Another 2 years like the past two, he's a lock to win again. The left is terrified of losing again.