Mitt Romney's candidacy

SHISHKABOB

She's not for "free stuff" though, she's for "free birth control"

Saying "free stuff" implies that the person wants all sorts of stuff. She's just asking for one thing that would be very helpful to her.

Jimmy Snyder

The first poll in Sept 2011 had Romney ahead by +4. The last poll in October had Obama ahead by +5. That is to say, Romney was pulling away, but in the wrong direction. The first primary fight took place two months later in January.

Edit: That +4 result at the beginning of September was the highest he would achieve throughout the months of September and October.

mheslep

Yep Jan 3rd, and the first "my opponent is a fraud-moron-jerk" attack ad was run when? The first debate?

Gokul43201

Ooh, bazinga! I'd like to see the look on the lady's face after that.

Gokul43201

If 300 million Americans each want "one thing that would be very helpful" to each of them to be free, you end up with "free stuff". So perhaps it isa little unfair to describe Obama as supporting all "free stuff", but by typical election politics standards, this is quite tame.

Jimmy Snyder

If Romney wins the nomination, then I will positively vote for him to be President. But if he picks Christie for VP, then I will absolutely positively vote for him.

Christie would listen.

mheslep

Any acceptable Veep alternatives on your list? Rubio? Ryan? Rand Paul? Santorum?

Jimmy Snyder

If Romney wins the nomination, then I will positively vote for him to be President.

phoenix:\\

Given my past history in this thread, some may find it odd that I too will be voting for Romney. I have my personal reasons for my pick of him, and while most find the Ryan budget plan revolting, I personally don't, I actually believe it to be one of the better sides of Romney's run at the presidency, but that isn't the only reason, I believe his ideals are more inline with the fiscal conservative mindset that I like the most. But that is just me, if he doesn't win, I won't be sadden over it.

As for how he wins it? How about no attack ads, and focusing primarily on policies he plans to enact? I believe ignoring the probable attack ads from Obama's camp and restructuring the campaign around prosperity in the form of non-vague terminology like "hope", "change", etc..., and just "this is what I will do 'insert policy', and this is the effect it will have..." show more positives about your plans and speak more frequently about them. In my opinion that will usurp any attack ads Obama's superpac puts out as they will be focusing on the negatives of Romney's past.

In the debates Obama will go after Romney's lack of plan and that will be his major downfall in my opinion, if he doesn't start pushing his agenda more often. That is why I believe negative attack ads are backwards in that they speak little of the candidate and more of the other camp. It does nothing but prolongs an inevitable soap opera that I, or anyone else, should begin to care less for if at all.

As for the VP pick? Christie is an obvious no for me, and Rubio? Also a no for me. I believe Tim Pawlenty is a pretty safe pick for Romney, he was able to balance Minnesota's budget, able to decrease spending, etc..., all of which were needed at the time he took office. He also did not raise taxes. We've become increasingly democratic over the years though. (I also really like Jon Huntsman!). Paul Ryan? I won't particularly be too dismayed if he is chosen either, but my two main picks are Pawlenty or Huntsman.

Alfi

If money talks, Romney will have to speak up.



Obama posts 10-1 financial edge over Romney, putting $104M into campaign war chest

Published April 21, 2012 | Associated Press

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-campaign-war/

jduster

I think it is way too early to speculate about VP picks, especially since none of the candidates who ran could help Romney. When is it ever who the media speculates it to be?

mheslep

Do you really mean "most", or "some"?

phoenix:\\

I mean a majority of Americans (medicare). While split on the overall budget.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-to-ryan-plan/

mheslep

The 58% with the "don't like" opinion 58% is a bit short of 'revolting'.

phoenix:\\

A bit short of not being on the list. The outrage from the Catholic church and democrats is why I labeled it "revolting" as I was concerning their position.

skippy1729

You miss three points:

1. There will be an equal number of super-pacs focusing on the presidents record and negatives from his past. Most voters will not distinguish between ads by the candidates and super-pac ads.

2. Nobody likes negative ads but they work. Without negative ads Newt would be the GOP nominee.

3. Character doesn't count in presidential elections. If it did, McCain would be running for re-election. If not for the 22nd amendment, Bill Clinton might be running for his 5th term!

Skippy

Jimmy Snyder

I should run for office. Between my positive ads for myself and my opponent's negative ads against me, no one will even know my opponent's name.