An interesting strategy

[ArmedProgrammer]

1) Yes I know that this article was in the HuffPo
2) And yes I know that there's a lot wrong with Mitt Romney
3) And there's a lot wrong with all of the candidates (the Witch being worst of all)
This author is proposing an interesting strategy that the more Centrist/Establishment folks may employ. It's interesting to be sure....
Mitt Romney, A Nation Turns Its Lonely Eyes To You

I'm not asking if anyone here would vote for it.
I'm curious a) if you think it would work (idea being get neither Trump nor Hillary) and b) if you think it will happen as a last ditch measure.

Grabbing the popcorn and oil, putting it in the kettle and awaiting the flames....

For the record I'd hope we can discuss this from a _strategic_ point of view , and not turn it into " Trump vs Hillary vs. Screw You" etc.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Somebody else wrote about this scenario some weeks ago. I have no problem with it. The biggest problem I think I see is lack of a mandate the republican congress selected president would have. S/he would have to hit some home runs in that first year or year and a half because if s/he didn't, the republicans would probably find themselves in a significant minority when the midterm elections were over.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

In my mind the closet danger in this strategy would be that a person must ONLY appear on state ballots that you can win on. Reason being that if you split the vote in a bunch of states , then the Witch might actually win states that otherwise would be Red states. And that could prove problematic.

I do agree that if the person that the Republican House elected did not deliver - things would get ugly at the polls with the next election. But if Hillary gets in , it WILL be ugly and if Trump gets in it may well get ugly too.

 

[Tombs]

I wouldn't vote for Mitt before, and I won't vote for him again.

Why on earth would republicans push forward a total loser like that, they already got to see how he performed, he blew it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

In my mind the closet danger in this strategy would be that a person must ONLY appear on state ballots that you can win on. Reason being that if you split the vote in a bunch of states , then the Witch might actually win states that otherwise would be Red states. And that could prove problematic.

I do agree that if the person that the Republican House elected did not deliver - things would get ugly at the polls with the next election. But if Hillary gets in , it WILL be ugly and if Trump gets in it may well get ugly too.

Yeah, the write up I saw stated that the states in which the person would run had to be strategically selected and that makes sense. For one thing, you'd probably be short on money so that would force you to be prudent. And yeah, you'd want to select states that you could sway ever so slightly to keep either candidate from hitting 270 (??? I think that's right).

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Tombs - as I said , I'm putting this out as a mater of STRATEGY not Trump vs Witch vs Whoever...

Frankly, any of the candidates with ANY kind of broad recognition and relatively low negative numbers (and relatively low numbers of skeletons in the closet) could be employed in a similar strategy. Scott Walker would be another one that could easily be employed like this.

 

[miguel]

I wouldn't vote for Mitt before, and I won't vote for him again.

Why on earth would republicans push forward a total loser like that, they already got to see how he performed, he blew it.

Wait, Mitt Romney is pumping gas in Utah now? How the mighty have fallen.

 

[Tombs]

Tombs - as I said , I'm putting this out as a mater of STRATEGY not Trump vs Witch vs Whoever...

Frankly, any of the candidates with ANY kind of broad recognition and relatively low negative numbers (and relatively low numbers of skeletons in the closet) could be employed in a similar strategy. Scott Walker would be another one that could easily be employed like this.

There were 18 candidates, the people narrowed it down to 1 in a relative landslide with the highest voter turn out for any candidate in the party's history.

Your idea is to field a candidate people are luke warm to, who didn't attract voters the first time around, and has no chance of attracting them now. All the while, denying people the individual they voted for and they supported in record numbers.

This sounds more like a suicide note for the republican party than a strategy, granted they're sure enjoying shooting themselves in the foot this election. I'd rather they kept it on their foot and avoided their head.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

And for the record, if Gary Johnson simply had the huevos to win his home state of NM ??? That would go a long way towards this scenario....


Ahem, for the record, this is NOT my scenario, nor one that I necessarily support. Heck, it's published by the HuffPo - who I'm not exactly on friendly terms with.

I found it interesting , and one that has a remote chance of happening. That is all I have on it.

 

[BugI02]

1) Yes I know that this article was in the HuffPo
2) And yes I know that there's a lot wrong with Mitt Romney
3) And there's a lot wrong with all of the candidates (the Witch being worst of all)
This author is proposing an interesting strategy that the more Centrist/Establishment folks may employ. It's interesting to be sure....
Mitt Romney, A Nation Turns Its Lonely Eyes To You

I'm not asking if anyone here would vote for it.
I'm curious a) if you think it would work (idea being get neither Trump nor Hillary) and b) if you think it will happen as a last ditch measure.

Grabbing the popcorn and oil, putting it in the kettle and awaiting the flames....

For the record I'd hope we can discuss this from a _strategic_ point of view , and not turn it into " Trump vs Hillary vs. Screw You" etc.

Depends on what you mean by 'work'. Remember Trump got slightly more than 2million more primary votes than Romney did in 2012. So while the strategy might 'work' as in successfully deprive Trump of the presidency, but to what purpose. Even if you could convince the house to install Mitt he would have no legitimacy and accomplish nothing. How is that better than a Trump worst case, or even as good?

 

[AtTheMurph]

NO

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Depends on what you mean by 'work'. Remember Trump got slightly more than 2million more primary votes than Romney did in 2012. So while the strategy might 'work' as in successfully deprive Trump of the presidency, but to what purpose. Even if you could convince the house to install Mitt he would have no legitimacy and accomplish nothing. How is that better than a Trump worst case, or even as good?

I agree with you here. I personally view Trump as bad and the Witch as a LOT worse. So a president that got nothing done (i.e. status quo ante) doesn't sound that bad.

That said, what you mention is, in my mind , the failing of this strategy. Lack of a mandate for the person elected.

 

[Twangbanger]

To strategically evaluate this proposal, you need only read the following paragraph of the article, and consider what it reveals about the writer's political motives:

"...While I admire Hillary Clinton’s lifelong commitment to children, fairness, and progressive politics in general..."

So we've established the writer has no beef with Hillary's policies - only her persona.

Now, what do you think angry Republican voters will do, when the House of Representatives flouts the wishes of Republican Primary voters in this manner, and installs Mitt The Loser in the most powerful seat in the World? I'll tell you exactly what they will do: they will assist the rest of the American Electorate in burning down the Republican House at the earliest possible opportunity (ie, the next mid-term), via a combination of non-participation and outright sabotage, delivering the most secure piece of GOP real estate into Democrat hands.

...just like the writer wants them to.

This proposal is not offered because the writer genuinely wants Mitt Romney as President. It's offered because the writer realizes GOP control of the House is the greatest barrier to Progressive policies, and this is the quickest way to get rid of the GOP's most intractable barrier to that type of change.

If you listen closely, Liberals will tell you precisely what they fear most on Planet Earth: it's President Trump, with a GOP-controlled House of Representatives taking orders from a previously unengaged, but newly-energized, Republican base. Never forget that.

This strategy gets rid of both elements of the Liberal Nightmare - and ushers in permanent Democrat control - in two years flat. Anyone politically right-of-center would have to be crazy to even consider it.

 

[edporch]

Romney is a northeastern liberal, and Trump's history is as a northeastern liberal.
What is Romney supposed to solve?

 

[The Bubba Effect]

You think the dems have the useful idiots stirred up right now? Steal the election from Hilary and see how things go in the cities (it is rightfully hers, she deserves it because shut up).

 

[BugI02]

... If you listen closely, Liberals will tell you precisely what they fear most on Planet Earth: it's President Trump, with a GOP-controlled House of Representatives taking orders from a previously unengaged, but newly-energized, Republican base. Never forget that.

Yessss


View attachment 48395

 

[BugI02]

Romney is a northeastern liberal, and Trump's history is as a northeastern liberal.
What is Romney supposed to solve?

He's the water that some would wash their hands in

 

[oldpink]

To strategically evaluate this proposal, you need only read the following paragraph of the article, and consider what it reveals about the writer's political motives:

"...While I admire Hillary Clinton’s lifelong commitment to children, fairness, and progressive politics in general..."

So we've established the writer has no beef with Hillary's policies - only her persona.

Now, what do you think angry Republican voters will do, when the House of Representatives flouts the wishes of Republican Primary voters in this manner, and installs Mitt The Loser in the most powerful seat in the World? I'll tell you exactly what they will do: they will assist the rest of the American Electorate in burning down the Republican House at the earliest possible opportunity (ie, the next mid-term), via a combination of non-participation and outright sabotage, delivering the most secure piece of GOP real estate into Democrat hands.

...just like the writer wants them to.

This proposal is not offered because the writer genuinely wants Mitt Romney as President. It's offered because the writer realizes GOP control of the House is the greatest barrier to Progressive policies, and this is the quickest way to get rid of the GOP's most intractable barrier to that type of change.

If you listen closely, Liberals will tell you precisely what they fear most on Planet Earth: it's President Trump, with a GOP-controlled House of Representatives taking orders from a previously unengaged, but newly-energized, Republican base. Never forget that.

This strategy gets rid of both elements of the Liberal Nightmare - and ushers in permanent Democrat control - in two years flat. Anyone politically right-of-center would have to be crazy to even consider it.

Yep
This is just another variation of what has come to be known as concern trolling.

 

[Twangbanger]

Yep
This is just another variation of what has come to be known as concern trolling.

I had not heard the term, but it seems like a good one.

To the extent these people actually want Mitt Romney, what they really desire is George Bush Senior, over and over again: one-term Republicans who deliver both houses of Congress to the Democrats. (If they raise taxes in the process, even better).

 

[T.Lex]

Mitt would be a terrible move for a variety of reasons.

The only (viable) way Trump doesn't get the nominations is if he doesn't want it. Only way he'll part with it is if he gets to pick the guy who will get it.

I don't think he'll pick Mitt.

If, by some stroke of self-righteous luck, the delegates turn their back on Trump, it'll truly be the end of the Republican party.