20/20 hindsight: Pubs shoulda nominated Romney

Great Debates
#1

As much ink has poured into pointing out how the economic disaster has benefitted Obama, it’s fairly amazing to me how much better Romney (with all his baggage) would be doing if the Pubs had nominated him.

Of course, no one could have known that the economy would be quite as big an issue as it is, and I’m sure Romney would have created other issues to run against him for, but …WOW!! This election seems to be mainly about Americans deeply mistrusting McCain’s stewardship of the economy, a role Mitt Romney was born to star in, no?

#2

I agree. Methinks the Republican party, and maybe the country in general, would have been a little too uncomfortable with a Mormon in that position in 2008.

But in 4 years, who knows? It’s quite an exciting statement that a black man is about to win the American presidency, which would have once caused 70+% of the population to fall to the floor laughing. Nominating a Mormon who has been a governor of one of the country’s most liberal states doesn’t seem so far-fetched all of a sudden.

Romney will be 65 in 2012, and 69 in 2016. He might have 1 or possibly 2 more go-arounds before he, too, starts to come across as a little old. But he looks great. A little Reagan-like magic on the rug upstairs might go a long way.

#3

If it’s any consolation, if the nomination hadn’t been settled before the Indiana primary, I’d have probably voted for Romney (tho I was open to Huckabee.)

As it was, I voted for Hillary. Never thought I’d say that.

#4

Methinks the next republican big contender will be female. No not the hockey monkey, but someone with some clout. 2020 perhaps…I think the dem will hold the office for a long while after Obama’s 8 years.

#5

I think McCain is actually doing about as well as any Republican could in this election cycle. Romney doesn’t have his war-hero cred or maverick image (FWLIW). Romney would be hit for his flip-flopping (he ran to the left of Ted Kennedy for the Senate, for chrissakes) and would probably lose votes for his Mormonism. His term as governor of Mass. wasn’t all that, either.

I do think McCain should’ve picked Huckabee as his running mate, though. He’d bring along the Christian Right, just as Palin seems to have done, and has considerably more executive experience than her, while lacking her negatives.

#6

Boy, you are right…McCain looked like 90! Old, worn out, and blabbering. the man made no sense at all! What really scares me-McCain thinks that the USA is in the same position as we were in 1964! We aren’t! We are:
-broke
-facing defeat in two wars
-needlessly antagonizing a resurgent Russia
-facing economic collapse
And this senile old fool wants to plunge into another war!:smack:

#7

I’d probably vote for Carly Fiorina over most Democrats other than Obama.

#8

I don’t see how Romney would fair any better than McCain. He is even more closely associated with the economic policies of the Bush administration: tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation. Plus, as was pointed out in the primary, Romney looks like the guy people get their pink slip from, which is not a good thing in the middle of a recession. The only way Republicans could win this election is with a moderate candidate, and Romney ain’t it. Hell, McCain isn’t moderate enough. Maybe Chuck Hagel.

#9

Condi '12!

#10

YOU never thought you’d say that? How do you think the REST of us thought? :wink:

#11

I don’t think it would have mattered, to be honest. Obama has run a flawless campaign thus far and I’m thinking that none of the Republican contenders would have fared much better than McCain did. I think it was just Obama’s year.

-XT

#12

Romney would have given him more economic credibility for sure, but he had zero appeal with the social conservatives (compare with Palin, who has tons of it). Wouldn’t that be at best a trade-off? Because of his huge shifts on a number of issues I don’t think Romney connected with many people.

#13

I think having Romney instead of Palin would have significantly ameliorated the hit he took, and is taking, from the ongoing financial situation, but it probably would have sunk him a few points in virtually every hardcore Republican state, the ones that have voted for a Democrat maybe once or twice since LBJ.

#14

Well, I think Palin has actually helped McCain…and I think she has given him a bigger boost than Romney would have. JMHO and I realize that the amount of venom directed at Palin around here is going to make this position unpopular. Personally I think Romney would have been the Biden choice…the safe, boring and expected choice. And I think people would have trotted out all the prepared points and counter points had he gotten the nod…and then yawned and gone back to sleep. Palin on the other hand shook things up on both sides…the AMOUNT of venom, IMHO, shows just how much she shook the other side.

I thought this thread was about Romney getting the nomination though…I must have mis-read the OP.

-XT

#15

HUckabee and McCain: The guy who doesn’t believe in evolution and the guy who remembers it. :smiley:

(another Bill Maher joke)

#16

No, that’s what the OP says. I think the advantage of someone who’s smooth instead of surly, economically fluent instead of economically challenged, Reaganesque instead of crypt-masteresque, mighta helped.

#17

In hindsight maybe…though maybe not, too. But at the time of the nomination everyone expected that Iraq and Iran (and other foreign issues) would be the main issue. Even later on people thought that (this is why Obama chose Biden IMHO…for his supposed foreign policy experience). No one really expected the economy to go this tits up in this period of time…and no one really predicted the MANNER that it went tits up either, though a lot of folks were concerned about the housing market.

I think that the economy going down the way it has is what put Obama over the top…so, in a way, it’s sort of a gods-send (heh) to his whole campaign and the Obama faithful.

-XT

#18

I agree. Whether or not she’d be a good VP, the pick did what it was supposed to do. Maybe the Palinthusiasm only postponed an inevitable slide in the polls, but my argument last month was that she was actually less of a risk than picking a safe choice because the other VP options were very weak.

New post to respond to what the OP was really saying: :smack:

The subprime fiasco had been going on for a long time before the primaries got started, but neither party realized how important the economy was going to be in this election. I thought the conventional wisdom was that people vote Democrat when they’re concerned about the economy, and if so, that would have favored them anyway.
Would Romney have been able to combat that? He had a strong resume for it, but my response would be “Romney should’ve run a better campaign,” and then they might’ve nominated him! :stuck_out_tongue: GOP voters didn’t trust him because he differed from them on social issues (at least, his record said he did) and because he ran for president as a totally different person from his previous campaigns. Every other candidate nailed him as a flip-flopper and he didn’t show much in the way of personality or an ability to connect. The Mormon thing didn’t help at all, either.

#19

I still think McCain should have picked her as his running mate.

#20

Actually it doesn’t surprise me. He is right wing so he was probably just voting against Obama since he figured Hillary would be easier for a Republican to beat. Nothing he has ever posted would suggest that he has any actual affinity for Hillary or her positions.