What If Mitt And Jeb Really Do Go At It, Hammer And Tongs?

[sean miguel]

If there was someone who could hold onto or increase that lead with independents while winning the battle of the bases they'd have a nice crib for use on Pennsylvania ave.

Derr, really? Winning the independent vote and getting more of your base to turn out than the other side would win you the White House? Wow, brilliant analysis on my part.

What I shoulda said is that Obama proved that the middle doesn't always decide elections. You can lose the independent vote and still win if your base turns out and the other side's is subdued.

Question is, is there a republican who can do what Obama did in 2012?

 

[Jack Davenport]

The dems put on some act like Hilary Clinton is this juggernaut that is going to steamroll into the White House. Her own party doesn't even like her. There has been this draft Warren movement going on for the past year or so. Why are they doing that? Because they know Clinton isn't likeable. Why is Romney considering after saying "never again" because he sees political fruit ripe for the picking. We can run anyone except for Palin and have a real shot at this. My record for predicting these things is pretty decent. I even won a few bets during the mid terms and those bets were made in October and November of 2013.

 

[Mayhem]

Poll: Run Hillary. Run Mitt.
They fare much better than Christie and Perry in a survey of would-be contenders.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/hillary-clinton-mitt-romney-2016-elections-114369.html

Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney are the would-be candidates that Americans most want to run for president in 2016, while solid pluralities would prefer that Chris Christie and Rick Perry sit this election out, according to a new CBS News Poll released Sunday.

The poll also indicates that a number of potential 2016 contenders remain largely unknown to the general public, or, at least, are being met with a smattering of indifference.

Leading the way is former Secretary of State Clinton, with 85 percent of the surveyed Democrats expressing approval for a potential candidacy by her, against only 11 percent who opposed that idea. Also, 51 percent of independents liked the idea of her running. She was the only would-be contender supported by a majority of independents; the survey did not question members of the opposite party.

Next up was 2012 Republican contender Mitt Romney, whose would-be candidacy drew a positive reaction from 59 percent of Republicans vs. 26 percent who didn’t like the idea. However, 49 percent of the independents surveyed were not pleased with the idea.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush had slightly lower approval ratings — 50 percent of Republicans — but a comparable negative rating to Romney’s — 27 percent. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who ran in 2008, also drew significant support, with 40 percent of Republicans saying they’d be happy to see him try again (with 29 percent saying no).

No Democrat was anywhere near Clinton, with the closest being Vice President Joe Biden, whose split (40 percent supporting a candidacy, 38 percent opposed) at least demonstrated name recognition for the person who has been a heartbeat away from the presidency for the past six years.

Most of the other would-be contenders would seem to have a ton of work to do if they have any hope of hearing “Hail to the Chief” played in their honor in January 2017.

The highest net disapproval ratings all belonged to Republicans: former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (30 percent yes, 59 percent no), New Jersey Gov. Christie (29 percent yes, 44 percent no) and longtime Texas Gov. Perry (21 percent yes, 32 percent no). Those numbers were just their numbers among Republicans; among independents, they were all, without exception, worse.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (27 percent yes, 34 percent no) was also underwater, though his numbers with independents (26 percent, 32 percent) were basically the same.

The poll also showed a number of would-be candidates have yet to make any dent nationally.

The key figure for Maryland’s Martin O’Malley, for instance, was 82, the percentage of Democrats who said they “don’t know enough to say” whether they’d like him to puruse the presidency. Only 3 percent voiced support for the idea of an O’Malley candidacy.

Others were also largely met with shrugs.

Among Democrats, those were former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb (78 percent with no opinion), Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (71 percent), New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (65 percent) and first-term Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (57 percent). That’s true even though the number of would-be candidates appears to be appreciably lower on the Democratic side.

Republicans who have as yet not made a huge dent: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (65 percent with no opinion), Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (64 percent) and conservative activist Ben Carson (61 percent). Faring only slightly better were two highly visible tea-party figures from the Senate’s class of 2010 — Marco Rubio (54 percent with no opinion) of Florida and Ted Cruz (53 percent) of Texas — and another 2012 contender, Rick Santorum (51 percent).

Yup, my predictions go pretty good too. Independents. Don't scare them off.

And if I was a Republican, I'd be worried about that 30% who thinks Palin is a good idea.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Romney is the one out of the Establishment crew that I would vote for. I am undecided on Christie. Jeb Bush and I stay home. I'd worry about your own 40 percent that think Crazy Uncle Joe is a good idea.

 

[xfire]

If Mitt picks a decent running mate and Hillary gets the democratic nomination, it could be an interesting race.

 

[laidoff2]

Not really into dude on dude porn, but I'm not gonna judge.

It would be a way more honest way to make a living for both of those guys.

 

[Mayhem]

Poll: Support for Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush has dropped

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-support-mitt-romney-and-jeb-bush-has-dropped

Potential 2016 candidates Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney have earned plenty of headlines after publicly acknowledging that they’re revving up likely presidential campaigns. But, so far, they haven’t gained positive marks from the public, according to the newest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

In fact, both candidates have lost ground since pollsters last measured Americans’ feelings towards them – including a dip from members of their own party.

Just 27% of Americans now offer a positive rating for Romney, the Republican party’s nominee in 2012, compared with 40% who give him negative marks. And just over half of Republicans – 52% – give him a thumbs up, while 15% disagree.

In September of last year, when Romney was widely expected NOT to seek the presidency again, his ratings stood at 32% positive/ 39% negative. With Republicans, that split was 60% positive/ 13% negative.

While former Florida governor Jeb Bush is not quite as well-known as Romney – 13% of respondents don’t know his name – he’s also seen a drop in popularity since announcing that he’s “actively exploring” a 2016 run.

Just 19% of Americans now give Bush a positive rating, while 32% assess him negatively. His fans include just 37% of Republicans, versus 15% offer a poor assessment of him.

By comparison, it was 26% positive/33% negative last November. Among Republicans at that time, Bush’s rating stood at 44% positive to 12% negative.

While Romney’s overall negative rating is higher than Bush’s, the former GOP nominee enjoys more favor with conservatives than Bush, whose backing for comprehensive immigration reform and the Common Core education curriculum have made him a lightning rod for anti-establishment ire.

Forty-five percent of self-described conservatives and 52% of Tea Party supporters view Romney positively in the latest survey.

But just 30% of conservatives and 29% of Tea Party backers say the same of Bush.

While both Republican candidates post a net-negative rating, likely Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton currently enjoys an overall positive assessment from the American public.

Forty-five percent of Americans rate her positively, while 37% rate her negatively.

Among Democrats, three-quarters give Clinton a thumbs up, with just 7% disagreeing.

I put Hillary's numbers in bold, but like the rest of us, I'm not viewing this as good news.

Run Lizzie Run!

 

[xfire]

http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-jeb-bush-set-meet-privately-utah-060418301.html

Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush set to meet privately in Utah: New York Times

(Reuters) - Leading potential Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush are scheduled to meet privately later this week in Utah, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Former Florida governor Bush and 2012 Republican nominee Romney have grabbed recent buzz from operatives and donors aligned with the party's establishment after both said they were exploring possible 2016 presidential bids

The New York Times, citing two unidentified leading party members, said the session was planned before Romney made a surprise announcement earlier this month to a group of donors that he was weighing a third run for the White House. The paper said Bush had sought the meeting.

Reuters could not independently verify the report. Requests for comment were not immediately returned by representatives for Romney or Bush.

Bush's moves toward a bid have made the path to the White House tougher for potential Republican rivals, including Romney who ran unsuccessfully in 2008 and 2012. Other 2016 hopefuls include New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, and Florida Senator Marco Rubio.

In Reuters interviews with Republican members, done after Romney said in San Diego last week he was "seriously considering" a run, few were enthusiastic. Most expressed a wish for him to sit out the race.

Many Republican party members expressed a desperation to win back the White House after two consecutive defeats. Most said they believe Romney would not be the strongest choice in a 2016 race that could see Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee.

Would the real conservative please stand up? Two fairly moderate establishment republicans pow-wowing this early ahead of the primaries can't be good for the teabag cons.

 

[Jack Davenport]

http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-jeb-bush-set-meet-privately-utah-060418301.html



Would the real conservative please stand up? Two fairly moderate establishment republicans pow-wowing this early ahead of the primaries can't be good for the teabag cons.

It might be even worse for the D-bag "dims" I am on record as a vote for Romney should he win the nomination.

Since we are name calling and all..

 

[xfire]

It might be even worse for the D-bag "dims" I am on record as a vote for Romney should he win the nomination.

Since we are name calling and all..

Romney isn't conservative, and if you object to how I characterized the far right of the republican party, as "teabag cons", please, elaborate on why you feel offended. You, on the other hand are being deliberately offensive calling democrats, "d-bags" and "dims", and if you can't understand the difference in how I characterized far right republicans and the slander you're throwing at democrats, well, then you need another cup of coffee.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Romney isn't conservative, and if you object to how I characterized the far right of the republican party, as "teabag cons", please, elaborate on why you feel offended. You, on the other hand are being deliberately offensive calling democrats, "d-bags" and "dims", and if you can't understand the difference in how I characterized far right republicans and the slander you're throwing at democrats, well, then you need another cup of coffee.

I am a conservative and I agree with the Tea Party faction of the Republican party far more than I disagree with them. Mitt Romney I believe is more conservative than he lets on. Much like Obama painted himself as a moderate center left candidate in 2008 and even in 2012 albeit a little less then.

Romney would more than likely be at least a tolerable president for conservatives.. Now we have the true Obama presenting himself right before our very eyes. He could give a damn about elections when they don't go his way he just bulldozes ahead with his agenda. His State Of The Union address was nothing more than rehashed lies promises and platitudes. In his own words back in 2009 he told senate and congressional republicans that "Elections have consequences" but when elections don't go his way they are inconsequential . This executive order drunk president that we have now is exactly what I knew him to be back in 2008. Say what you gotta say to get elected, take baby steps until the next election campaign and then go balls out when don't have to worry about being elected again.

I am not expecting the left to critique him in the least. They knew the game plan and it worked flawlessly. Now there is a potential Romney campaign once again, and I judge Mitt Romney by the life he has lead, the overall common decency of the man and not by every policy decision he has made. Hopefully, he can become the next president and although I am sure I would disagree with him from time to time, I think he will be the first president to at least try and bridge the gap that is widening in the republican party and work with the democrats (unlike this current president) and get some things done that all can accept and live with. So yeah, I take offense and your constant jabs about the far right or the tiresome tea-bagger crap. Especially when you seem to be at least a little farther left than center and that is really not a vantage point to be throwing stones of extremism by the right. That to me seems like Douchbaggery and so the tag D-bagger tag seems to fit quite well. Especially for those in your party that don't display any ability to do anything but proceed with a d-bagging dim witted left wing agenda.

 

[xfire]

I am a conservative and I agree with the Tea Party faction of the Republican party far more than I disagree with them. Mitt Romney I believe is more conservative than he lets on. Much like Obama painted himself as a moderate center left candidate in 2008 and even in 2012 albeit a little less then.

Romney would more than likely be at least a tolerable president for conservatives.. Now we have the true Obama presenting himself right before our very eyes. He could give a damn about elections when they don't go his way he just bulldozes ahead with his agenda. His State Of The Union address was nothing more than rehashed lies promises and platitudes. In his own words back in 2009 he told senate and congressional republicans that "Elections have consequences" but when elections don't go his way they are inconsequential . This executive order drunk president that we have now is exactly what I knew him to be back in 2008. Say what you gotta say to get elected, take baby steps until the next election campaign and then go balls out when don't have to worry about being elected again.

I am not expecting the left to critique him in the least. They knew the game plan and it worked flawlessly. Now there is a potential Romney campaign once again, and I judge Mitt Romney by the life he has lead, the overall common decency of the man and not by every policy decision he has made. Hopefully, he can become the next president and although I am sure I would disagree with him from time to time, I think he will be the first president to at least try and bridge the gap that is widening in the republican party and work with the democrats (unlike this current president) and get some things done that all can accept and live with. So yeah, I take offense and your constant jabs about the far right or the tiresome tea-bagger crap. Especially when you seem to be at least a little farther left than center and that is really not a vantage point to be throwing stones of extremism by the right. That to me seems like Douchbaggery and so the tag D-bagger tag seems to fit quite well. Especially for those in your party that don't display any ability to do anything but proceed with a d-bagging dim witted left wing agenda.

You are so utterly convinced of your own bluster that it's pointless to go point by point over issues that have already been repeatedly refuted and dismissed. Particularly I'm referring to "executive order drunk" and "unwilling to work with republicans" but the overall tone of your post and "d-bagging dimwitted left wing agenda", also sticks out. Tea Partiers were the first to identify themselves as "teabaggers", so my apologies for using that self-anointed descriptor. Democrats have never described themselves as "d-baggers", and your characterization of democrats as such is so much buffoonery on your part. Now, you may take exception to my "constant" jabs at the far right, but it's not as if there's not even heavier handed jabs at Democrats and liberals on this forum. Take the fact that I took some delight in calling Jeanine Pirro a transvestite, you called me petty then turned around and roasted Debbie Wasserman Schultz with the same sort of pettiness. Not to mention the many times it's been suggested that Obama is gay, a socialist, a weak dictator, etc, you really have no room to be accusing anyone on the left, let alone anyone on this forum of douchebaggery. You may consider me left of center, and I certainly hold plenty of left of center views, but I've also got a fair amount of right of center views as well and I'll keep calling out both sides as I see fit.

 

[Jack Davenport]

You are so utterly convinced of your own bluster that it's pointless to go point by point over issues that have already been repeatedly refuted and dismissed. Particularly I'm referring to "executive order drunk" and "unwilling to work with republicans" but the overall tone of your post and "d-bagging dimwitted left wing agenda", also sticks out. Tea Partiers were the first to identify themselves as "teabaggers", so my apologies for using that self-anointed descriptor. Democrats have never described themselves as "d-baggers", and your characterization of democrats as such is so much buffoonery on your part. Now, you may take exception to my "constant" jabs at the far right, but it's not as if there's not even heavier handed jabs at Democrats and liberals on this forum. Take the fact that I took some delight in calling Jeanine Pirro a transvestite, you called me petty then turned around and roasted Debbie Wasserman Schultz with the same sort of pettiness. Not to mention the many times it's been suggested that Obama is gay, a socialist, a weak dictator, etc, you really have no room to be accusing anyone on the left, let alone anyone on this forum of douchebaggery. You may consider me left of center, and I certainly hold plenty of left of center views, but I've also got a fair amount of right of center views as well and I'll keep calling out both sides as I see fit.

There is anecdotal evidence that some conservative somewhere first coined the phrase but the preponderance of the evidence of it's origin leads to Anderson Cooper and back benchers like Maddow and Olbermann taking the ball (no pun intended) and running with it. D-bagger seems to stick in democrat's craw, I think I will send it to Mark Levin and let him start using it on his national stage. I am pretty sure I actually did coin the phrase. I refrained from bitching about Obama for 5 years of his presidency. And I have never spent a lot of time or any actually speculating about his sexuality, or his religious faith. Obama is showing his socialist colors now especially within the last 3 months. I may have made a disparaging comment about a liberal pundit or politician from time to time, but not on the constant level that almost every post you make seems to include as a cattle prod. Whether it is O'Reilly, Limbaugh, or back when you were on your Darrell Issa kick.

 

[Mayhem]

This executive order drunk president that we have now is exactly what I knew him to be back in 2008. Say what you gotta say to get elected, take baby steps until the next election campaign and then go balls out when don't have to worry about being elected again.

You are just too easy. Everything you write is instantaneously refutable. This time it's with a source that you should have known I was going to use. The last time it was with your own words.

Do you ever think about that? Do you ever think about how often you're wrong and how easy it is to prove it?

 

[xfire]

There is anecdotal evidence that some conservative somewhere first coined the phrase but the preponderance of the evidence of it's origin leads to Anderson Cooper and back benchers like Maddow and Olbermann taking the ball (no pun intended) and running with it. D-bagger seems to stick in democrat's craw, I think I will send it to Mark Levin and let him start using it on his national stage. I am pretty sure I actually did coin the phrase. I refrained from bitching about Obama for 5 years of his presidency. And I have never spent a lot of time or any actually speculating about his sexuality, or his religious faith. Obama is showing his socialist colors now especially within the last 3 months. I may have made a disparaging comment about a liberal pundit or politician from time to time, but not on the constant level that almost every post you make seems to include as a cattle prod. Whether it is O'Reilly, Limbaugh, or back when you were on your Darrell Issa kick.

If you really think you coined "d-bagger" for democrats you need to step back from the mirror. You can call democrats whatever you like, I really don't care, but it obviously really bothers you when I take shots at far right idiots, something I certainly don't "constantly" do, but I'm not going to stop doing just because you don't like it. Fuck O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Issa, and all the other far right trolls, they deserve the scrutiny and scorn, and there's certainly no lack of prodding of Democrats and liberals on this forum enough really to actually qualify as "constant".

 

[Jack Davenport]

View attachment 411732
View attachment 411733


You are just too easy. Everything you write is instantaneously refutable. This time it's with a source that you should have known I was going to use. The last time it was with your own words.

Do you ever think about that? Do you ever think about how often you're wrong and how easy it is to prove it?

When you can garner enough gray matter to detail the circumstances behind those EO's by previous presidents which most had bi partisan support and not try and cover for an executive order drunk president whose use of the pen is not for the greater good of the country but to further an agenda then you may be able to hold a conversation with me. Until then, I would suggest that you stick to posting half articles and screen shots as you usually do. When the totality of a president's EO's are to bypass congress that makes him "drunk". I stand by my statement.

 

[Jack Davenport]

If you really think you coined "d-bagger" for democrats you need to step back from the mirror. You can call democrats whatever you like, I really don't care, but it obviously really bothers you when I take shots at far right idiots, something I certainly don't "constantly" do, but I'm not going to stop doing just because you don't like it. Fuck O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Issa, and all the other far right trolls, they deserve the scrutiny and scorn, and there's certainly no lack of prodding of Democrats and liberals on this forum enough really to actually qualify as "constant".

I have never heard the term D-bagger used by anyone but myself. You can use the term tea bagger all you want, but don't sit back and start bitching about uncomplimentary things said about those of your ilk when that is basically all that you do.

 

[xfire]

When you can garner enough gray matter to detail the circumstances behind those EO's by previous presidents which most had bi partisan support and not try and cover for an executive order drunk president whose use of the pen is not for the greater good of the country but to further an agenda then you may be able to hold a conversation with me. Until then, I would suggest that you stick to posting half articles and screen shots as you usually do. When the totality of a president's EO's are to bypass congress that makes him "drunk". I stand by my statement.

Allow me to respond to what you didn't aim directly at Mayhem, though questioning his gray matter is stepping over the line, of course you stand by your "executive order drunk" statement, just like Fox News and the rest of the far right punditry stand by every overblown, distorted, or outright fabricated charge they've made against this president. It's why I don't pull any punches in my "constant" jabs at the far right assclown teabagger cons. Why the hell should anyone on the left show any restraint when it's not even in the lexicon of the far right wingnuts?

I have never heard the term D-bagger used by anyone but myself. You can use the term tea bagger all you want, but don't sit back and start bitching about uncomplimentary things said about those of your ilk when that is basically all that you do.

When did I bitch about uncomplimentary things posted by the wingnut trolls? I don't think I did as I prefer to ignore, and if I don't ignore I respond in kind, but that's not nearly as often as I'm tempted.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Allow me to respond to what you didn't aim directly at Mayhem, though questioning his gray matter is stepping over the line, of course you stand by your "executive order drunk" statement, just like Fox News and the rest of the far right punditry stand by every overblown, distorted, or outright fabricated charge they've made against this president. It's why I don't pull any punches in my "constant" jabs at the far right assclown teabagger cons. Why the hell should anyone on the left show any restraint when it's not even in the lexicon of the far right wingnuts?




When did I bitch about uncomplimentary things posted by the wingnut trolls? I don't think I did as I prefer to ignore, and if I don't ignore I respond in kind, but that's not nearly as often as I'm tempted.

This response IS to you, since you have some difficulty in discerning what and what is not being directed at you. I think I shall present a comparative analysis of past EO's and what this president has done during his tenure. it may take some time but I am sure the results will not go in Obama's favor. Nothing about Obama's use of the pen has been distorted one iota. These teabagging assclowns just won an election. Just in case you forgot. Your president certainly has.

 

[Mayhem]

When you can garner enough gray matter to detail the circumstances behind those EO's by previous presidents which most had bi partisan support and not try and cover for an executive order drunk president whose use of the pen is not for the greater good of the country but to further an agenda then you may be able to hold a conversation with me. Until then, I would suggest that you stick to posting half articles and screen shots as you usually do. When the totality of a president's EO's are to bypass congress that makes him "drunk". I stand by my statement.

And I'm sure that you stand by your statement that the Left loves Islam and the Pope at the same time. And every other statement that has been disproven by full articles (I don't post half articles, so....wrong again) and screen shots from factual, accredited sources.

This what you and your Party has reduced yourselves too. Don't let the facts get in the way of the story/accusation/outrage. And you continue to pound the desk than just admit your error and move on. And then you wonder with eyes wide shut why me, xfire and the Left in general can't rise above outright contempt for Conservatives. We didn't ask you to be like this.

You guys said from the start that you were going to do everything in your power to obstruct Obama. Then you called him weak for being obstructed. Now you're calling him drunk because he's not allowing you to obstruct him anymore. All you guys want to do is be unhappy victims. In this America you claim that you love so much, someone you don't like won legitimately, by election. And you just can't stand it. And we did not ask you to be this way.