Posted on 03/27/2015 8:01:43 AM PDT by Citizen Zed
If you mean by winning the nomination, the only thing that would have changed was he would have gotten 42% instead of Romney’s 48%
you don’t know that - but thanks for the Washington Post inside the beltway take. He was the only man last time talented enough to change peoples’ minds with a single debate answer.
Except that history sez the exact opposite.
SC and Florida prove my thesis on 2012.
SC: The campaign was against the Democrats, and all other liberals. Record turn out, 35% ahead of 2008.
FL: It became Republican on Republican slam fest: turn outs LOWER than 2008 - hard to imagine - and no chance to carry Florida in the General.
History is clear. Period.
Gingrich’s problem was two things. One was the baggage he was carrying on his back from the 90’s. The perception of him by the general electorate, rightly or wrongly, was not going to be overcome. Second, Callista, her leading him around by the nose is not appealing in a President. Gingrich came off like Rush when he speaks of his latest young wife, pathetic. The over praising of the better half comes across as a little too much.
Come out of the bubble a little. In the world as I want it to be, your right. In the world as it really is, I’m right.
To add, take it as praise, the Santorum’s and Bachmann’s might not have cracked 40%. I take the electorate as it really is, not as I wish it as. Remember, if Romney had the same electoral demographic that existed 20 years ago, he would have won. Look around, it is not getting any better. Our voters have a foot in the cemetery, while theirs have a foot in the Rio Grande.
You are totally discounting something we call “a campaign.”
I don’t know if Romney would have won 20 years ago with the same campaign he ran or not - but I do know he WOULD have won 3 years ago had he run a proper campaign.
With due respect, your analysis is shallow and conventional.
You’re the one babbling like the bubble dwellers in DC and NY...you know, the same people who assured us 19 ways from Sunday that Reagan doesn’t have a chance.
you be on the wrong side of history.......period.
Whittling away at it will only make whats left even more expensive. Repeal it or leave it. And if you repeal then comes the decision on whether to replace it with something or go back to the way things were.
That is the GOP Christmas wish list. It is not binding, and I would be flat out amazed if the Republican leadership followed up on it and sent legislation enacting much of it to the floor of the House or Senate.
What if the insurance companies say "no"?
If it's law, they can't say no. They all fell in line pretty quick for Obamacare so it's doable. Also, build in penalties if they don't comply, they're as guilty as Congress in this mess.
Healthcare must entirely voluntary. Which includes paying for it.
This should be part of a prohibition against the US government having any direct contact with individual citizens, not through their states.
Not even the military draft is done directly, but through the states. Federal taxes may be *required* of citizens because of the 16th Amendment, but they should be funneled through the states, not direct.
There is no legitimate reason for the federal government to ever involve itself in our lives, as individuals. None. If they want to interact with me, do it through my state.
okay, I get it - the country may be lost -but that means a roll of the dice candidate, a hail Mary candidate - who may implode, or who may end up changing minds - is our only hope.
By your own logic, the safe candidate idea is doomed to failure. Thus, the argument “Newt might not have won” is not relevant. Mitt was never going to. Jeb is never going to. McCain was never going to.
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.