Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think so. He's a very popular governor whereas Mitt Romney was a deeply unpopular governor who watched 46 other governors run circles around him during his 4 years in office.
I don't believe that he would. I think he may poll alright because NJ isn't nearly as safe for liberals as Mass, NY, or CA but I still don't think he would win.
I think it all comes down to how poison the political environment is today. It hasn't been this torn apart in a long time. During the Clinton and Reagan years (Bush 1 to some degree) we saw a pretty solid amount of bipartisanship. But starting with Bush 2 it became dirty. Gore, despite his overwhemling popularity with Clinton, lost his home state.
I tend to agree a little with the merit of your post, I just think the environment in which we are operating throws some convential logic out the door. I feel like most people these days know, without a shadow of a doubt, who they will be voting for in the 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections before they even know who the candidate is. I know that most of my liberal friends operate that way, and most of my conservative friends do as well. It's screwed up, but I think it is true.
That....didn't...stop....Ronald Reaaaaaagan from winning Mass.
Two things to consider:
1980---John Anderson took 15% of the vote in Massachuttes. The majority of the votes would have gone to Jimmy Carter. Carter lost to Reagan by a mere 3800 votes in that state.
1984----I would contribute Reagan's victory in the Bay State in 1984 has a result of the Bandwagon Effect. Walter Mondale had loser written all over him towards the end of the 1984 campaign, and many voters who would have voted for Mondale stayed home.
1980---John Anderson took 15% of the vote in Massachuttes. The majority of the votes would have gone to Jimmy Carter. Carter lost to Reagan by a mere 3800 votes in that state.
1984----I would contribute Reagan's victory in the Bay State in 1984 has a result of the Bandwagon Effect. Walter Mondale had loser written all over him towards the end of the 1984 campaign, and many voters who would have voted for Mondale stayed home.
MNTroy...make sure that when responding to a liberal poster you punctuate with an emoticon. Liberals are attracted to lisa frank folders, bright colors, and happy faces. Let me give you an example.
"I wake up in the morning, humble myself before my Barack poster, open wide, and wish he were there to dominate my face hole "
Notice the emoticon at the end.....this will attract the average liberals attention long enough to read the entire post.
Reagan was an aberration. The nation has moved much further to the left today and the chance of ANY REPUBLICAN winning NY, MA, CA, VT, CT, RI, and NJ is essentially ZERO regardless of accomplishments or suitability for the office.
Your "argument" is a logic error on several levels-
1. the office of president is not equal to governor- there is no foreign policy for a governor and states will elect a candidate on LOCAL issues.
2. different time period- the nation has moved further to the left. States which voted for Reagan in '80 and '84 would NEVER vote republican again, regardless of performance or qualifications.
3. states vote differently for different offices- certain states will vote for a governor of one party and president from another.
Give it a rest. Obama has already lost and you can twist and squirm all you want, but it will not change the fact that Obama was a dismal failure and the nation is tired of him. Had he performed well, of course he would have been re-elected. However, he performed poorly- the shocking thing is that there are still people out there who want four more years of failed, inept policy.
The last time a Republican won Mass was in 1984 when Reagan won 49 states. Only reason Romney would need to campaign there is to match Reagan's 49 state record. Look for that in 2016.
The last time a Republican won Mass was in 1984 when Reagan won 49 states. Only reason Romney would need to campaign there is to match Reagan's 49 state record. Look for that in 2016.
LOL... Lets bet on that..
whatever the outcome of this election, Romney is not contesting for WH in 2016...
The last time a Republican won Mass was in 1984 when Reagan won 49 states. Only reason Romney would need to campaign there is to match Reagan's 49 state record. Look for that in 2016.
So you think Womney's going to run again after losing in 2012?
I'm comparing very popular politicians that are running or are planning shots at the presidency.
And the answer is no...he wouldn't carry Texas.
Would you like me to punctuate my post with an emoticon? I know how you like bright colors.
Ok, but you are still missing the point. mitt was the GOVERNOR of Mass. and has a track record there and won't carry the state. Castro is based on his POPULARITY in a given city and not on his performance
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"
