Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
I'm still voting for him under pretty much no circumstances that I can think of.
?
I'm still voting for him under pretty much no circumstances that I can think of.
Romney only lost because he was viewed as less of a reformer than McCain. With McCain gone, he is the official outisider candidate. Plus, 2008 was not so golden for him, because he was surrounded by a cast of celebrities to include McCain, Thompson, Huckabee, and Giuliani. Now, the celebrity fold consists of Palin and Jindal, and Huckabee is just another guy now...
∞zo;471478 said:the mormon reason is the stupidest most cringing repeated thing that i wish would just die. over and over again there were polls among republicans saying it wasn't an issue. At the end of the day evangelicals wont care much as long as they can execute you for abortions and can eradicate teh gayness
dude....people don't like mormons....i don't give a poop about polls, you know its true....if romney was catholic or some other mainstream protestant church he would likely be president
If Romney were Catholic he probably would've lost in the 2008 general rather than primary.
really....why do you say that?
QUOTE=Cypress;471534]For somebody who professes interest in politics, you're not too knowlegeble about it are you?
so your contention is that in a year when the GOP lost 9 senate seats, lost 20 House seats, people would have somehow been convinced to vote for Romney?
Has that ever happened before in modern history? One party totally blows the other out in senate and house, but the other party wins the presidency? I don't think so. When there's a congressional landslide, the party doing the landsliding always win the presidency. As far as I know