Posted on 06/19/2014 3:36:50 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
He's said over and over that he won't run for the White House a third time, but a new poll indicates that if Mitt Romney changed his mind and made another bid for president, he'd be the frontrunner among Republicans in the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire.
According to the Suffolk University/Boston Herald survey, which was released Thursday, 24% of Granite State Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP say that Romney would be their first choice for their party's presidential nomination.
Among the potential 2016 GOP contenders, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was a distant second, at 9%, with Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky at 8%, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 7%.
While the survey may make headlines, it's important to remember that Romney's very well known in New Hampshire. He owns a vacation home in the state, has often appeared at GOP events in New Hampshire, and was governor of neighboring Massachusetts. Romney easily won the 2012 Republican primary, but lost the state by six percentage points to President Barack Obama in the general election....
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
So how are those situational ethics different from a liberals?
Real heroes...those guys.
BTW, I fought against Romney all the way, but when he was the candidate, he had my full support.
Who did you support? Obama?
Im in AZ. It does not matter. But I sleep at night just fine.
So did you support Obama against Romney?
Nope.
So in the election, you actually went out and fought for Romney? And supported him financially?
Not always. If you look at the last 6 decades, in 1952, Eisenhower & Stevenson got their nominations on the first try. Ditto 1960 with Nixon & Kennedy. Although Goldwater had floated his name in 1960, he got the nomination on his first actual try in 1964. Humphrey got it on the second try in 1968 (but Nixon's was the second official nomination). McGovern got his on the first try in 1972, as did Carter in 1976. Reagan, like Humphrey, got his on the second try in 1980. Mondale & Dukakis on their first tries in 1984 & 1988. GHW Bush on his second try in 1988 (after first running in 1980). Clinton got in on his first try in 1992. Dole, lamentably, had to go through three tries to get it by 1996 (having tried before in 1980 & 1988). Dubya got it on a first try in 2000. Gore on his second (having tried back in 1988) the same year. Kerry & Obama both on their first tries in 2004 & 2008. McCain & Willard on their seconds in 2008 & 2012.
So, with the lone exception of Reagan, running retreads has been a fiasco for us, and hasn't worked since 1988 (and GHW Bush proceeded to undo what Reagan had done, paving the way for Clinton). Running first-time candidates on the Dem side has been a winner for them since 1976, and worked for us the last time we won an open race in 2000.
"Santorum and Romney both have large national organizations left over from 2012 and large fund raising lists to call. They have name recognition and both won Iowa sort of and both did well in NH. Either or both will be very tough opponents."
Willard should be a non-starter. That he would be attempting a third run, as Bob Dole did (or William Jennings Bryan, for that matter), is as gross an example of deliberately wanting the party to lose as can be. Santorum is NOT a strong candidate. He was second tier to start off with. Why he performed well was because he was the only thing remotely resembling a Conservative candidate, hence he was the fallback for many of us.
Of course, even as second-tier as he was, he had far more experience than Zero, who was barely out of the IL state legislature, where he was a virtual non-entity with nothing in the way of accomplishments (and successfully running two stronger opponents off the ballot). Indeed, to date, the ONLY strong candidate Zero has ever faced was Congressman Bobby Rush, who destroyed him when he tried to beat Rush in the Dem primary for Congress in 2000. That race was a premier example that Zero has always been eminently defeatable, so long as one ran a candidate who actually was credible and WANTED to beat him and not lose gracefully to him (hence a sacrificial lamb with no resources in 2004, Alan Keyes, or the two ringers of McCain and Willard).
How do you figure a rich Socialist like Willard deserves financial or political support from Conservatives (especially as he has spent his entire adult life sabotaging and undermining the Conservative agenda and their candidates using his deep pockets) ?
For the record, I voted for Virgil Goode for President in 2012. If the Republican Party puts up another execrable leftist ringer in 2016, I will vote third-party again.
Fact, no republican since nixon in 1960 won the republican nomination, the first time out.
Sorry, not worth arguing with one lib over another. Done this too many times Good luck with your Cheshire conservative fantasy. Post a pic of Yosemite Sam on a Dragon, tell the world it’s me and call me a name or two.
you still back a liberal.
Romney or Obama.
By choosing Virgil Goode (who the heck is he and where is he now), you supported Obama.
Thx Pal!
That's like being offered a choice between vanilla and chocolate ice cream...and you choose Pistachio.
Thanks bub...your obtuseness gave us a Gay/Marxist/Muslim for President.
"Oh waiter...I'll have the pistachio!"
Lib my arse...you supported Obama. That’s not just lib...that’s traitorous.
Lib.
“For the record, I voted for Virgil Goode for President in 2012.”
Well Goode for you. The American people have gotten too soft and could use a little hardship now and then. And thanks to people like you, the USA is experiencing Obama’s second term.
And you helped elect a muslim communist.
Proud of yourself?
Lib.
See: Insanity - definition of...
Commie!
Whatever lib.
Where’s the “Aw, Jeez...not this $#!t, again” guy?
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.