Of course he is, but I'm not sure they'll touch him with his Fuck the Poor budget hanging over their heads.
Perhaps we should have a VP poll? Who we think is most likely to get the VP nod.
Because if so I:
Nominate Marco Rubio.
Because never underestimate the GOP stupidity when it comes to trying to court minorities. This is the same party that thought Sarah Palin would let them get Hillary Clinton's female supporters.
Suggestion for a new thread.
Rubio's off the table. He's running for president in the next general election, not this one.
Rubio's off the table. He's running for president in the next general election, not this one.
What better way to lay the groundwork? If Romney loses he becomes the front runner by default and unlike every other loser in the race he has a senate seat to go back to.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Rubio's off the table. He's running for president in the next general election, not this one.
What better way to lay the groundwork? If Romney loses he becomes the front runner by default and unlike every other loser in the race he has a senate seat to go back to.
You don't have to be the VP to lay groundwork. Romney's doing just fine without that.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I still think it'll be a Paul.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Rubio's off the table. He's running for president in the next general election, not this one.
What better way to lay the groundwork? If Romney loses he becomes the front runner by default and unlike every other loser in the race he has a senate seat to go back to.
You don't have to be the VP to lay groundwork. Romney's doing just fine without that.
Rubio's off the table. He's running for president in the next general election, not this one.
What better way to lay the groundwork? If Romney loses he becomes the front runner by default and unlike every other loser in the race he has a senate seat to go back to.
You don't have to be the VP to lay groundwork. Romney's doing just fine without that.
Is he?
He's curbstomping the other candidates IIRC. The nomination is his to lose, which is very unlikely.
Of course he is, but I'm not sure they'll touch him with his Fuck the Poor budget hanging over their heads.
Perhaps we should have a VP poll? Who we think is most likely to get the VP nod.
Because if so I:
Nominate Marco Rubio.
Because never underestimate the GOP stupidity when it comes to trying to court minorities. This is the same party that thought Sarah Palin would let them get Hillary Clinton's female supporters.
Suggestion for a new thread.
I'd still say Susana Martinez, but not that confidently.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I wouldn't say curbstomping, that's something decisive. This is more like:
I think it's a long shot for either one, since they'd want to appeal to the base that doesn't care for Romney. I know the GOP has better drone voters than the dems do but Romney is probably one of the few things that could potentially cause a sizable chunk to stay home. Making matters worse for Romney is that there are already cases where the primary has left a bad taste in the mouths of GOP voters and it really doesn't matter who is to blame for that. Take VA for example, it's not his fault that Santorum and Gingrich failed to get on the ballot but people where still pissed that their choices were him and Paul.
As for Rubio, I would think being the VP for Romney would be a death blow to any 2016 presidential aspirations. Even if Obama wins by a slim margin, it just going to taint one's political career nationally. One of two things will happen after 2012 if Romney loses. The party is either forced back to the center, at which point if you were the 2012 VP choice, you're going to be viewed as too conservative, but this outcome doesn't seem likely. The likely outcome is the party is going to sprint further to the right, at which point you get viewed as the running mate of the guy who wasn't conservative enough and ergo you weren't conservative enough either.
With the above in mind, I'm willing to bet they pick Santorum because then it'll be easier to discard him during the 2016 primary and it will make the anti-Romney base happier for this year. If they don't go with him, they might not be able to appease the anti-Romney base and in 2016 they'll be fighting against the "it's his turn tradition" because anyone outside the rabid fundie base can see that the guy is a terrible candidate that will be crucified in a general presidential election and lose by a landslide.
Santorum is toxic outside of the GOP. He is even worse the Palin in that regard.
Maybe, if this campaign has proven anything it is that propaganda works. A man as toxic as Santorum was in 2008 loses to Obama by (on average) less than 10%. If the media decides to roll over for him in the general as much as they have in the primary for dramatic purposes the stain and the smell of Santorum will go unnoticed.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Rubio's off the table. He's running for president in the next general election, not this one.
What better way to lay the groundwork? If Romney loses he becomes the front runner by default and unlike every other loser in the race he has a senate seat to go back to.
You don't have to be the VP to lay groundwork. Romney's doing just fine without that.
Is he?
He's curbstomping the other candidates IIRC. The nomination is his to lose, which is very unlikely.
If I remember correctly, McCain secured the nom in half the time back in 2008. If anything, Romney's only having an "easy" time because the rest of the field is absolutely terrible and he's perceived as being the least bad option.
Rubio's off the table. He's running for president in the next general election, not this one.
What better way to lay the groundwork? If Romney loses he becomes the front runner by default and unlike every other loser in the race he has a senate seat to go back to.
You don't have to be the VP to lay groundwork. Romney's doing just fine without that.
Is he?
He's curbstomping the other candidates IIRC. The nomination is his to lose, which is very unlikely.
If I remember correctly, McCain secured the nom in half the time back in 2008. If anything, Romney's only having an "easy" time because the rest of the field is absolutely terrible and he's perceived as being the least bad option.
Rubio's off the table. He's running for president in the next general election, not this one.
What better way to lay the groundwork? If Romney loses he becomes the front runner by default and unlike every other loser in the race he has a senate seat to go back to.
You don't have to be the VP to lay groundwork. Romney's doing just fine without that.
Is he?
He's curbstomping the other candidates IIRC. The nomination is his to lose, which is very unlikely.
If I remember correctly, McCain secured the nom in half the time back in 2008. If anything, Romney's only having an "easy" time because the rest of the field is absolutely terrible and he's perceived as being the least bad option.
Agreed.
Don't forget, "outspending his opponents pretty massively." Isn't it like a factor of 5 just with his SuperPACs?
Rubio's off the table. He's running for president in the next general election, not this one.
What better way to lay the groundwork? If Romney loses he becomes the front runner by default and unlike every other loser in the race he has a senate seat to go back to.
You don't have to be the VP to lay groundwork. Romney's doing just fine without that.
Is he?
He's curbstomping the other candidates IIRC. The nomination is his to lose, which is very unlikely.
If I remember correctly, McCain secured the nom in half the time back in 2008. If anything, Romney's only having an "easy" time because the rest of the field is absolutely terrible and he's perceived as being the least bad option.
Agreed.
Don't forget, "outspending his opponents pretty massively." Isn't it like a factor of 5 just with his SuperPACs?
It sure is fun watching Romney burning through his war chest before even getting to the general election. :twisted:
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Rubio's off the table. He's running for president in the next general election, not this one.
What better way to lay the groundwork? If Romney loses he becomes the front runner by default and unlike every other loser in the race he has a senate seat to go back to.
You don't have to be the VP to lay groundwork. Romney's doing just fine without that.
Is he?
He's curbstomping the other candidates IIRC. The nomination is his to lose, which is very unlikely.
If I remember correctly, McCain secured the nom in half the time back in 2008. If anything, Romney's only having an "easy" time because the rest of the field is absolutely terrible and he's perceived as being the least bad option.
Agreed.
Don't forget, "outspending his opponents pretty massively." Isn't it like a factor of 5 just with his SuperPACs?
It sure is fun watching Romney burning through his war chest before even getting to the general election. :twisted:
Rubio's off the table. He's running for president in the next general election, not this one.
What better way to lay the groundwork? If Romney loses he becomes the front runner by default and unlike every other loser in the race he has a senate seat to go back to.
You don't have to be the VP to lay groundwork. Romney's doing just fine without that.
Is he?
He's curbstomping the other candidates IIRC. The nomination is his to lose, which is very unlikely.
If I remember correctly, McCain secured the nom in half the time back in 2008. If anything, Romney's only having an "easy" time because the rest of the field is absolutely terrible and he's perceived as being the least bad option.
Agreed.
Don't forget, "outspending his opponents pretty massively." Isn't it like a factor of 5 just with his SuperPACs?
It sure is fun watching Romney burning through his war chest before even getting to the general election. :twisted:
you think his war chest has a bottom to get to?
you're optimistic!
No, it won't have any significant effect on the general. What it does is piss Romney & his investors off for having to burn truckloads of cash they were sure was an easy win for him.
Rubio's off the table. He's running for president in the next general election, not this one.
What better way to lay the groundwork? If Romney loses he becomes the front runner by default and unlike every other loser in the race he has a senate seat to go back to.
You don't have to be the VP to lay groundwork. Romney's doing just fine without that.
Is he?
He's curbstomping the other candidates IIRC. The nomination is his to lose, which is very unlikely.
If I remember correctly, McCain secured the nom in half the time back in 2008. If anything, Romney's only having an "easy" time because the rest of the field is absolutely terrible and he's perceived as being the least bad option.
Well, in 2008 pretty much every state was winner-take-all, and Super Tuesday had far more states vote. Hard to draw parallels when the process has changed so much.
Rubio's off the table. He's running for president in the next general election, not this one.
What better way to lay the groundwork? If Romney loses he becomes the front runner by default and unlike every other loser in the race he has a senate seat to go back to.
You don't have to be the VP to lay groundwork. Romney's doing just fine without that.
Is he?
He's curbstomping the other candidates IIRC. The nomination is his to lose, which is very unlikely.
If I remember correctly, McCain secured the nom in half the time back in 2008. If anything, Romney's only having an "easy" time because the rest of the field is absolutely terrible and he's perceived as being the least bad option.
Agreed.
Don't forget, "outspending his opponents pretty massively." Isn't it like a factor of 5 just with his SuperPACs?
It sure is fun watching Romney burning through his war chest before even getting to the general election. :twisted:
you think his war chest has a bottom to get to?
you're optimistic!
No, it won't have any significant effect on the general. What it does is piss Romney & his investors off for having to burn truckloads of cash they were sure was an easy win for him.
Technically, should every dollar spent in the primary be one less to spend in the general. I mean contributions are pretty much unlimited now, so any money burnt comes off the total.
No, it was wrong before. Primary campaigns and presidential campaigns have different pots.
In fact back when you had contributor maximums this was a decent deal because it's not like you're going to ever tap out the rich with a measely few grand twice where you could in a brutal campaign run them dry in a PAC blowing millions to win some flyover state that won't matter at all in the presidential.
No, it was wrong before. Primary campaigns and presidential campaigns have different pots.
In fact back when you had contributor maximums this was a decent deal because it's not like you're going to ever tap out the rich with a measely few grand twice where you could in a brutal campaign run them dry in a PAC blowing millions to win some flyover state that won't matter at all in the presidential.
So wouldn't that mean that all this spending is now bad for Romney? What am I missing?
Posts
Rubio's off the table. He's running for president in the next general election, not this one.
- it is a thing
- it, as a thing, does other things
What better way to lay the groundwork? If Romney loses he becomes the front runner by default and unlike every other loser in the race he has a senate seat to go back to.
You don't have to be the VP to lay groundwork. Romney's doing just fine without that.
Is he?
He's curbstomping the other candidates IIRC. The nomination is his to lose, which is very unlikely.
I'd still say Susana Martinez, but not that confidently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnOZRVZocbE
The economy got me this job after they de-regulated the industry and let the market work.
If things are goin' fine here then all you gotta do is recreate it, just on a larger scale.
simple
...now somebody has to remake that scene in which Michael (Romney) is trying to fire Creed (Santorum) and Creed talks him out of it.
It's amazing how well that sums up Romney's performance as the 'inevitable nominee'.
Also, yes, the new thread should have a VP poll.
Bet he's kicking himself now.
I thought Romney was more about shooting at squirrels or rabbits.
Small varmints, if you will.
I think it's a long shot for either one, since they'd want to appeal to the base that doesn't care for Romney. I know the GOP has better drone voters than the dems do but Romney is probably one of the few things that could potentially cause a sizable chunk to stay home. Making matters worse for Romney is that there are already cases where the primary has left a bad taste in the mouths of GOP voters and it really doesn't matter who is to blame for that. Take VA for example, it's not his fault that Santorum and Gingrich failed to get on the ballot but people where still pissed that their choices were him and Paul.
As for Rubio, I would think being the VP for Romney would be a death blow to any 2016 presidential aspirations. Even if Obama wins by a slim margin, it just going to taint one's political career nationally. One of two things will happen after 2012 if Romney loses. The party is either forced back to the center, at which point if you were the 2012 VP choice, you're going to be viewed as too conservative, but this outcome doesn't seem likely. The likely outcome is the party is going to sprint further to the right, at which point you get viewed as the running mate of the guy who wasn't conservative enough and ergo you weren't conservative enough either.
With the above in mind, I'm willing to bet they pick Santorum because then it'll be easier to discard him during the 2016 primary and it will make the anti-Romney base happier for this year. If they don't go with him, they might not be able to appease the anti-Romney base and in 2016 they'll be fighting against the "it's his turn tradition" because anyone outside the rabid fundie base can see that the guy is a terrible candidate that will be crucified in a general presidential election and lose by a landslide.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Maybe, if this campaign has proven anything it is that propaganda works. A man as toxic as Santorum was in 2008 loses to Obama by (on average) less than 10%. If the media decides to roll over for him in the general as much as they have in the primary for dramatic purposes the stain and the smell of Santorum will go unnoticed.
If I remember correctly, McCain secured the nom in half the time back in 2008. If anything, Romney's only having an "easy" time because the rest of the field is absolutely terrible and he's perceived as being the least bad option.
Agreed.
Yes, this worked so well last time we tried it and wasn't responsible for the complete breakdown of our economic system. Soooo Simple.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Don't forget, "outspending his opponents pretty massively." Isn't it like a factor of 5 just with his SuperPACs?
It sure is fun watching Romney burning through his war chest before even getting to the general election. :twisted:
you think his war chest has a bottom to get to?
you're optimistic!
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
But he wants to end entitlements!
Yes, this douchebag:
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
No, it won't have any significant effect on the general. What it does is piss Romney & his investors off for having to burn truckloads of cash they were sure was an easy win for him.
That is a terrible insult to the moon.
Well, in 2008 pretty much every state was winner-take-all, and Super Tuesday had far more states vote. Hard to draw parallels when the process has changed so much.
The moon is nowhere near as dense as Sarah Palin. 3.346 g/cm3 is peanuts compared to Sarah
Technically, should every dollar spent in the primary be one less to spend in the general. I mean contributions are pretty much unlimited now, so any money burnt comes off the total.
Or am I wrong?
In fact back when you had contributor maximums this was a decent deal because it's not like you're going to ever tap out the rich with a measely few grand twice where you could in a brutal campaign run them dry in a PAC blowing millions to win some flyover state that won't matter at all in the presidential.
So wouldn't that mean that all this spending is now bad for Romney? What am I missing?