Mitt Romney 2016 and Ron

[andy2044]

I've been thinking lately, Mitt has been gaining a lot of criticism for running a third time. Rand has been mentioning that as a reason for him not to run. But Ron ran three times.

It seems to me, if you're a fan of the first Dr. Paul, why criticize Mitt for a third run?

And if Rand's potential base is pro-Reagan, didn't Reagan also run 3 times?

 

[jjdoyle]

I've been thinking lately, Mitt has been gaining a lot of criticism for running a third time. Rand has been mentioning that as a reason for him not to run. But Ron ran three times.

It seems to me, if you're a fan of the first Dr. Paul, why criticize Mitt for a third run?

And if Rand's potential base is pro-Reagan, didn't Reagan also run 3 times?

There's a very easy way I can answer why I don't criticize Dr. Paul for running three times. Rand could use it as well. I'll sell it to the highest bidder.

But no, I don't believe Reagan ran three times. Specifically, not like Romney. He ran once in '76 and lost. Then ran in '80 and won. Difference. Winning.

 

[fr33]

Well it really isn't what Rand should be criticizing about Romney. If Romney is running again, then it's time to test Rand's campaign and make sure that it isn't Ron's. There are plenty of issues to criticize Romney and let's get started. Last election only people like us carried out these attacks. The campaign didn't attack the frontrunner.

You've got plenty to work with. Don't just do like daddy did and do nothing.

 

[CPUd]

The only candidate to get the party nomination and lose 3 times in the general election is William Jennings Bryan. Thomas Dewey lost 2 times. There were several other 2-time candidates who won the second time, just no one recently.

Theodore Roosevelt didn't run for reelection in 1908, but switched to the Progressive Party to run against Taft in 1912, where they both got crushed by Wilson.

 

[fr33]

If you are running against Romney in the Republican primaries and you don't make a tv ad out of this, then I don't know why you are bothering with it.

 

[andy2044]

My thing is stick to the issues. Don't say something that can bite you (or your famous father) in the ass. That includes running 3 times. And unfortunately, that may include things said while not in office (about race for both Ron and Rand).

Considering that his biggest opponents in 2016 are Romney and Bush, Rand needs to stick to the issues. If 2012 is any indication, Romney is patient for his turn and will let everyone else self destruct. As much as I loved ads like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgNJBdTaKE8, it just isn't going to work on the likes of Romney. He's willing to let the flavor of the month have their turn and self destruct.

We need to be issues based and present why we are better than Bush, Romney, Clinton, Warren, and Castro from DAY ONE!

Then again, I'm a journalism student and not a campaign operative like Jesse Benton.

 

[andy2044]

Did Ron do an ad about this considering he was the first to endorse Reagan?

 

[rp08orbust]

Rand isn't an idiot. I wouldn't be surprised if he's hoping his opposition brings up his dad's three presidential runs and he has a comeback ready.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

There's a very easy way I can answer why I don't criticize Dr. Paul for running three times. Rand could use it as well. I'll sell it to the highest bidder.

But no, I don't believe Reagan ran three times. Specifically, not like Romney. He ran once in '76 and lost. Then ran in '80 and won. Difference. Winning.

Reagan ran in 1968 as well as '76 and '80.

 

[jjdoyle]

Reagan ran in 1968 as well as '76 and '80.

Correct! Reagan didn't win the nomination until '80, and he won the General Election when he had the nomination. That is the big difference, along with Reagan also taking a break between runs and not running 3 times back-to-back (without a win).

 

[Okaloosa]

Correct! Reagan didn't win the nomination until '80, and he won the General Election when he had the nomination. That is the big difference, along with Reagan also taking a break between runs and not running 3 times back-to-back (without a win).

Losing in the general election soundly to an unpopular President and being called electable against a much more formidable candidate in Hillary is idiotic

 

[robert68]

Losing in the general election soundly to an unpopular President and being called electable against a much more formidable candidate in Hillary is idiotic

Sitting Presidents are always hard to beat. And getting 47% of the popular vote isn't that bad.

 

[CPUd]

Sitting Presidents are always hard to beat. And getting 47% of the popular vote isn't that bad.

It depends on where that 47% live.