Posted on 08/20/2014 8:54:53 AM PDT by Zakeet
It turns out that there are some good reasons why the former Governor and GOP Presidential nominee is allowing his name to be circulated as a potential candidate in 2016. Some of those good reasons can be found in a new poll by Zogby Analytics showing him outpolling his nearest rivals for the nomination by about two to one. The poll of 315 likely Republican primary voters was conducted online on August 13-15 and has a margin of sampling error of +/-5.6 percentage points.
Romney places first in the 2016 race for the nomination with 20%, followed by New jersey Governor Chris Christie 12%, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul 11%, Texas Senator Ted Cruz 9%, former Arkansas Governor and Fox News host Mike Huckabee 8%, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush 6%, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker 4%, Florida Senator Marco Rubio 4%, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindahl 3%, New Mexico Governor Suzanna Martinez 1%, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley 1%, Ohio Governor John Kasich .3%, and Ohio Senator Rob Portman at 0. Three percent selected the “Other Candidate” category and 17% were not sure.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
No, your tolerance of a liar like Romney is causing the problems.
Romney is certainly benefitting here from name recognition, but also from the serious buyer’s remorse over reelecting Obama in 2012.
In a similar vein, a lot of people voted for George W. Bush for sentimental reasons: giving him the second term many felt, after 8 years of Clinton, his Dad should have received in 1992.
It doesn’t mean that Romney will be competitive, let alone win the nomination again, in 2016. However, those Conservatives who are really worried/upset/angry/outraged over such a possibility (or the possibility of ANY RINO getting the nom) need to be the first ones advocating for Conservatives to coalesce around a single Conservatie candate early in the 2016 cycle.
I respect you argument. Of course I am afraid of a radical left Supreme Court and the other damage that will result from a Hillary or Warren presidency.
But voting for RINOs will not save us. No more voting for RINOs ever, under any circumstances. Period.
In the past I voted for McCain, and Romney nationally, and for Scott Brown in Massachusetts. But I guess it depends on your belief in how far gone this nation is, and what it will take to restore it, assuming that is even possible at this point.
Personally, I now believe that the only way to save this nation now (assuming such a thing is still possible) is to put conservatives in political offices and enact an agenda based on free markets, limited government and the rule of law. As long as we have a Republican party that actively opposes those ends (and we do, obviously), then I believe our only (slim) hope is drastic action.
As long as the Republican Party establishment believes that it can continue to survive by being Democrat-lite, and that it can continue to maintain power while actively fighting against the core principles of liberty, free markets and Constitutional law, it will never make the necessary change of direction.
Only when the Republican party understands that it must change or die can we hope to turn this country around. Our too-long-serving entrenched establishment politicians can still enjoy their comfy lifestyles, their wealth, power and prestige as members of a minority party. So why should they bother to change direction?
Surely a John Boehner (or an Eric Cantor -- had he not been defeated -- or a Mitch McConnell) would be just as happy to be minority leaders if the election cycle didn't go their way. Yes, they would prefer to be majority leaders, but what good would it be to them if a conservative Republican Party won the majority and then threw them out of their cushy positions and all those perks, replacing them with real conservatives?
Ask yourself -- which do you think Mitch McConnell would prefer -- a majority Republican party in which he was stripped of his position by a conservative majority, or a minority Republican party in which he could remain Senate minority leader because the majority of Republican senators were RINOs?
You may argue that we have no time to wait for the Republicans to realize that their only choice is to change or die as a viable party. But if we don't have time for that, then what makes you think we have time to wait for the RINOs and the GOP-e to pursue a "moderately marginal" course of action designed only to maintain their personal fiefdoms at the expense of a free America operating under the rule of Constitutional law?
The GOP had majority power in the House and Senate, and occupied the White House, 10 years ago. What did all that power do to move the agenda of liberty forward? Answer: nothing.
A GOP that cannot even sell liberty, limited governments and free markets to the American people is worse than useless. It is a party of tyranny enablers, and I will have none of it.
Unbelievably, today we are facing once again the stark choice between liberty and death.
Once again, these are the times that try men's souls. Conservatives need to be waging aggressive war against the totalitarian leftist tyrants on all fronts -- in the branches of government at the federal and state level, in academia, in the media, through public demonstrations, and in the voting booth.
Many argue that we must continued to vote for "the most electable conservative," which means "vote for the RINO if no conservative is running." But I respectfully disagree with that choice. I am done enabling.
If we really are to lose the greatest country in the history of the world, then let's at least be fighting for it when it goes down.
And who knows, maybe -- just maybe, if we show sufficient resolve and conviction -- divine Providence will once again provide the support that gave our founders their unlikely victory in 1776, and grant us once again the "new birth of freedom" that Lincoln called for a century later.
It’s pretty evident that the elders running the GOPE are dim bulbs, but this new effort to resurrect the Romney political corpse shows that they are also overcome by lethargy and ennui in not even bothering to prop up a “new” worn-out, over the hill, careerist punching bag.
As I said, I voted for two rinos and got Obama for 8 years. Vote for a third rino and get Hillary or Warren for at least 4 years. Not me.
Great post, Maceman. I think we've learned that we aren't numerous enough to fight a two-front war. For now, it makes more sense to take on GOPe, and it's yielding results.
I work with a number of liberals that know I enjoy Atlas Shrugged. In speaking with one yesterday, she expressed her appreciation for the friendly manner in which I explained the theme of the book. I was able to turn out nearly a dozen to see AS2, and am hoping for similar results for AS3.
There's a time for stridency, but we must always be looking to plant seeds for harvesting in the future. IOW, this battle to return our country to the right path will truly be a long march.
I'm not doing this for me, but for my kids, grandson, nieces, and nephews. On my wife's side of the family, I now have over 20 nieces and nephews (including grandnieces/nephews). That's a lot of young lives to fight for.
You want to tell that to JimRob, who, correctly, decided Romney was a better choice than Obama in the last election cycle?
All these illegal children flowing over the border and rising threat if ISIS is the fault of idiots like you that decided Obama was better than Romney. Romney wouldn't have opened the borders and he would have kept troops in Iraq.
I disagree. The RINOs will at least protect our national security from the threat if Islamic radicals. They won't open the borders to illegals by the tens of thousands.
There is no way to avoid total destruction if someone like Elizabeth Warren is elected.
I do agree that we need a conservative to fix the economy and get the debt under control. Let's hope the puritans amongst us don't start ripping apart far more conservative candidates than Romney, Christie or Paul. It's the quest for perfection that gave us Romney and McCain in the first place. That has allowed the Republican establishment to split the conservative vote.
Sure. Romney's at the top of this poll because he's the one most people polled have actually heard of. That's all.
But he's not running and most likely he won't run, so it's not really any reflection on "how well he's doing." If anything, it indicates how divided the vote is between the others who actually might run.
Apples to oranges. The House will likely become more conservative after this election and that is the best chance for conservative leadership.
But, yes, there is a huge difference in even a Republican establishment President and a radical liberal -- one Supreme Court nominations, on border security and on national security.
Next thing ya know that obsessed ELSIE will show up!
Ted Cruz - 2016!
...that having only 15% of your members being eligible to spend eternity with God the Father is a GOOD thing.
Bleah.
I’ve said it before, and I will say it again. I voted for Romney in 2012 because I knew what 4 more years of Obama would mean. But he was never the candidate I wanted, and he’s not the guy we need in 2016. We can do better.
(I have NO idea what the OTHER 5.7% of them said to the pollsters)
I am part of the base.
I will not argue with anyone. He beats Chris Christy, Jeb Bush, & probably value Mitt Romney for his intelligence, ability to accomplish and his moral values. He should team with Dr. Ben Carson & Herman Cain, Forbes for cabinet
Basically, I TRUST Mitt
YOUR continuing support for Romney is showing.
Who do YOU want to run as President in '16?
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.