Is Mitt Romney a serious contender for President in 2012?

[Lincoln Republican]

Is Mitt Romney a serious contender for President in 2012?

Please vote and discuss if you wish.

[Joe Republic]

Yes, but that doesn't make him any less awful.

[tmthforu94]

Given the fact that he came very close to winning in 2008, that he's leading in many polls, and that most people think he'll win, I'd say so.

[President Mitt]

Yes, but that doesn't make him any less awful.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Yes, but that doesn't make him any less awful.

[Sewer]

Yes, but that doesn't make him any less awful.

[ScottM]

Yes. He definitely is. I'm personally not a fan of Romney's. Some of his changes in his political views seemed a bit too convenient to me (meaning they seemed to coincide too well with his entering the '08 race), but that said, I have to believe he is a serious contender. He, Huckabee, and Palin, have been leading most of the polls to this point, and if 2012 is anywhere near as much of a Republican year as I expect it to be, anyone who is a serious player in the GOP primary has to be considered viable in the race as a whole.

[CatoMinor]

Yes, but that doesn't make him any less awful.

[Mr. Morden]

Sorry Winfield, but what is the purpose of this poll?  Obviously the guy is a serious contender, as he is arguably the frontrunner for the GOP nomination.  What more is there to discuss on this topic?

You were more amusing when you did polls like this:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=94046.0

[RIP Robert H Bork]

for the nomination (perhaps)

for the presidency (no)

On second thought, this is more accurate.

[Lincoln Republican]

Sorry Winfield, but what is the purpose of this poll?  Obviously the guy is a serious contender, as he is arguably the frontrunner for the GOP nomination.  What more is there to discuss on this topic?

You were more amusing when you did polls like this:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=94046.0

Well, that got 8 pages of replies.  It must have been of interest to some.

[Mr. Morden]

Sorry Winfield, but what is the purpose of this poll?  Obviously the guy is a serious contender, as he is arguably the frontrunner for the GOP nomination.  What more is there to discuss on this topic?

You were more amusing when you did polls like this:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=94046.0

Well, that got 8 pages of replies.  It must have been of interest to some.

That's my point.  Polls like that were amusing.  This one....I can't figure out what the point of it is.

[Lincoln Republican]

The point of this poll should be self explanatory, and that is to find out, at this point in time, from the members of this forum their view on this subject.

So far 9 out of 12 believe Romney to be a serious contender for President in 2012.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

for the nomination (perhaps)

for the presidency (no)

[RosettaStoned]

Mitt Romney is epic fail.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Mitt Romney is epic fail.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He seems as serious as McCain did in 2006.

[Progressive]

Even though I do not want a Repub to win in 2012, isn't it best for the GOP to nominate someone who was NOT affiliated in any way shape or form with the presidential election of 2008?

I mean, how can someone vote for Romney, Huckabee, or Palin without being tied to the major loss of 2008? Why isn't the GOP looking for candidates such as Thune, Pence, Cantor, Crist, etc.

[ScottM]

Even though I do not want a Repub to win in 2012, isn't it best for the GOP to nominate someone who was NOT affiliated in any way shape or form with the presidential election of 2008?

I mean, how can someone vote for Romney, Huckabee, or Palin without being tied to the major loss of 2008? Why isn't the GOP looking for candidates such as Thune, Pence, Cantor, Crist, etc.

I don't think that's as important as avoiding nominating a McCain style candidate. There were a lot of Republicans (myself included) who just had to hold our noses and vote for "the lesser of the two evils."


I think a lot of the reason McCain was nominated wasn't so much because he was considered the best candidate, but because it was "his turn." A repeat of that must be avoided.

[Rudy]

Unfortunately yes, I do see that Mitt Romney has the willingness and capability to win the Nomination of the Republican Party. Do I support his efforts? Certainly not. Romney has no real principles of his own, Mitt Romney is whatever Mitt Romney needs to be to win the next election.

[Guderian]

Even though I do not want a Repub to win in 2012, isn't it best for the GOP to nominate someone who was NOT affiliated in any way shape or form with the presidential election of 2008?

I mean, how can someone vote for Romney, Huckabee, or Palin without being tied to the major loss of 2008? Why isn't the GOP looking for candidates such as Thune, Pence, Cantor, Crist, etc.

I don't see how this makes any sense. Primary losers went on to win the presidency later in their careers many times, even primary losers who lost to a guy who went on to lose in general election. Actually, Republicans have a strong bias towards nominating candidates who lost a primary at some point (Reagan, Bush 41, Dole, McCain). Even Palin can take comfort in the fact that FDR won the presidency after being a failed VP candidate in 1920.  

That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing some fresh blood in 2012. Thune is a low-key, not very well known guy who hardly ignites any passion and doesn't have a power base, electoral appeal or high name recognition. I think he could be solid VP pick, especially if Romney is the nominee, since he will need a young, evangelical Senator to balance the ticket. Pence has some pretty significant base following and I personally like him, he also has a certain amount of charisma and leadership skills but he also has the name recognition problem plus the fact that Congressmen face terrible odds in presidential races. Another guy who is more likely VP material in my opinion. Cantor has the same problems as Pence, and not as much strong suits. Crist is a laughable 2012 prospect as Marco Rubio is about to retire him politically in Florida Senate primaries.

Other potential new name worth mentioning is Pawlenty, maybe Mitch Daniels if he wants to be involved. Overall, I consider Romney the frontrunner at this moment.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Even though I do not want a Repub to win in 2012, isn't it best for the GOP to nominate someone who was NOT affiliated in any way shape or form with the presidential election of 2008?

I mean, how can someone vote for Romney, Huckabee, or Palin without being tied to the major loss of 2008? Why isn't the GOP looking for candidates such as Thune, Pence, Cantor, Crist, etc.

Naw. Compare to Reagan in 1976 and 1980.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Romney cannot be a serious contender for the presidency until he can figure out who he is and what he really stands for.  How much pandering, how much issue-flipping, and how many millions of dollars of his own money did he have to spend in order to finish behind McCain and Huckabee?
He may get the establishment, but he wont win the primary voters.

[Brittain33]

With the Republicans' main initiative is to oppose a health care plan identical to what Romney helped pass in Massachusetts, how are his opponents going to resist tarring him with that?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Romney cannot be a serious contender for the presidency until he can figure out who he is and what he really stands for.  How much pandering, how much issue-flipping, and how many millions of dollars of his own money did he have to spend in order to finish behind McCain and Huckabee?
He may get the establishment, but he wont win the primary voters.

Amen to that.

Just remember, you will get a lot of heat from some Romney supporters for saying he finished third.

With the Republicans' main initiative is to oppose a health care plan identical to what Romney helped pass in Massachusetts, how are his opponents going to resist tarring him with that?

This, too.