Someone wanted to know what the appeal of Romney was. I told him. The reason the threads turn bad is because you have to dispute the assertion. In this case, there’s no need to, because the idea that Romney got the support he did was because government competence has been an issue, and Romney did have a solid history of accomplishment in that regard.
Which is why, of course, American voters overwhelmingly elected Romney over Obama in 2012.
No, you brought up Obama in response to a post that wasn’t about him and couldn’t help but include a dig at him. Yes, everyone knows that you hate Obama with some strange passion. The assertions you make about him are mostly just your opinions, and they’re opinions that everyone here already knows you hold it. And in my view they’re opinions that are driven by your vitriol for him. But my point is that you include these digs in threads that are not about Obama, and in response to posts that don’t mention him.
Other issues were even more important. But Romney did have some appeal. He outperformed John McCain, so that’s something.
Well, the guy didn’t understand what the appeal of Romney was. Couldn’t help but to observe that a lot of really smart people don’t understand why competence is an issue these days. Obliviousness to reality is the only likely explanation.
No. “Obama is incompetent” is a statement of opinion, not reality. And lately, it’s an opinion that only a minority holds (not that this matters as to whether it’s correct or not).
Your “couldn’t help…” tells it all. You just can’t help yourself but let your vitriol for Obama spill through into posts on topics that aren’t about him.
The Obama thing seems like a bit of a hijack. Might be best to stick to Romney.
I am going to reinforce this view for multiple threads.
Not actually what happened:
Your shot at Obama was not necessary to make your point about Romney. Romney’s ability to manage was independent of Obama’s actions (unless you are claiming that Romney had no appeal except as a counter to Obama). This is the third recent thread explicitly devoted to discussion of Republican candidates where you have felt a need to take a swipe at Obama. You are perfectly welcome to take shots at Obama (or start your own thread about him), but you need to stop making posts that are clearly intended to hijack the threads.
[ /Moderating ]
Romney got the support he got because he was the only one in the republican primary that wasn’t a complete moron and the only one in the general election that wasn’t a democrat. That is all he ever had going for him.
The check is in the mail!
Emphasis on complete, of course. Although I feel like asking for a cite.
Romney was a smart guy. He was just absurdly wealthy and couldn’t relate to anyone worth a damn.
Huntsman wasn’t loony but he went nowhere. Romney was just the right amount of pandering loony to get the nom, and then tracked to the left hard in the general. Etchasketch indeed.
But I’m not curious about why he had supporters in 2012,I’m just sincerely curious about how he was leading recent polls for 2016. Everyone I knew he supported him did so with extreme reluctance. He was the anti-obama vote and nothing more. Why would anyone want to give him a 2nd chance? He was absolutely horrible.
Maybe just name recognition?
Probably because he’s been on TV in the last couple years going “See! I said in the campaign that [ISIS was bad / Russia was bad / Healthcare was bad]** and if I were president then [that wouldn’t have happened / that would have happened / that would have happened differently!]”, and a certain segment of the population was going “Maybe we should have let him be president - let’s give him a shot in 2016!” … and kept that thinking going until a “better”* candidate showed up.
- in their minds
** hyperbole intended for humorous effect
Because his qualifications are just as good in 2015 as they were in 2012.
I’m guessing you didn’t know very many Romney supporters.
Romney was/is a very good candidate. He has enormous experience managing money (to say the least), he has experience in managing very large projects, he has executive experience, he has experience in working with the opposite party, he has very strong moral character, and I voted for him and not against Obama. He was the better candidate, and I hope very much he changes his mind and runs again, and hope that he will be elected.
This thing about “he is out of touch” is spin. It’s what political parties do, Democrats as well as the GOP. Obama won because he was the incumbent, and the incumbent always has the advantage. That’s not going to be true in 2016.
If you are “sincerely wondering” why anyone supported/supports Romney, perhaps you can let go of the automatic assumption that whatever objections the Democrats raise to their opponents are always decisive, or true. If you can’t, you won’t be able to understand.
Regards,
Shodan
Obama won because of incumbency, but also because he ran a good campaign and Romney didn’t. Romney and his team, apparently, were as deluded as the skewed-polls guys – they were just totally blown out of the water by Obama’s data-driven campaigning.
I’m kind of sad a Democrat won’t get to beat Romney again, as he was a terrible campaigner and hired even more incompetent people.
Romney’s problem isn’t his campaigning, it’s his background. A successful businessman as the GOP Presidential nominee cannot win.
Well, certainly not if he is caught on tape making absurd comments about 47% of Americans not taking personal responsibility for their lives. (And his recent efforts to re-write his statement are rather pathetic. It didn’t occur to him, at the time, to “correct” the record? It took him two and a half years to remember what he “really” meant?)
ETA: Are you suggesting that only an unsuccessful Republican businessman such as GWB could win? 
Yes. Unsuccessful businessmen usually don’t lay people off or fire ineffective workers.