Is Mitt the new Hillary?

[Profound Gibberish]

You remember Hillary? She had the money, organization and political support to make her nomination all but inevitable. Except for one thing--an intense personal dislike of the voting public.

Seems to me Romney is in the same boat. He has the money & organization, but seems to lack some impoartant political backing and an uncertain voting public. I am sure his Mormonism will turn off a lot of voters--especially the christian fundamentalists who would consider him a worshiper of a false prophet.

[Marley23]

Romney [...] seems to lack some impoartant political backing
It's true that Romney has had trouble winning over parts of the conversative establishment (because he's not a hardline conservative) and parts of the religious right (same, and the Mormon thing). I don't see how this was true of Hillary Clinton in 2008. She had the Democratic establishment firmly behind her.

[Oy!]

I'm wondering, based on the recent NY state by-election, whether or not the Republican establishment hasn't gone overboard on the red meat here. Romney is the only major Republican candidate who hasn't signed on to the kill-Medicare idea and he created what was at the time a perfectly acceptible to Republicans health care program in Massachusets.

In the by-election, steadfast Republicans made pretty clear what they think of killing Medicare. Is it possible that the Republican voters are not as extreme as the ditto-head/Palin/tea part wing are trying to make them?

The way the Republican establishment is going, they are marginalizing themselves pretty badly. I won't shed any tears; I'm a Democrat. But you'd think the money guys would be kind of concerned. Has the beast they unleashed trying to win in 2008 gotten out of control?

[Marley23]

That's basically the problem the party has right now. They need the Tea Party's enthusiasm, but the more they adopt its positions, the more problems they have with moderate and independent voters.

Romney does have one problem in common with Hillary Clinton in that a lot of people see them both as pure politicians who will say anything to get elected. Maybe that's what the OP meant about contempt for the public.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Here's an article (http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20110603/US.Fact.Check.Romney/) which runs a fact check on Mitt's recent statements attacking Obama.

I thought Romney was actually the reasonable version of a Republican. Turns out he's just about as full of crap as the rest of them.

Hillary? I don't know how GOPers saw her, maybe she was just another dem to them. To me, she was respectable but has an annoying voice and is a little wooden/robotic.

[Tom Scud]

That's basically the problem the party has right now. They need the Tea Party's enthusiasm, but the more they adopt its positions, the more problems they have with moderate and independent voters.

Romney does have one problem in common with Hillary Clinton in that a lot of people see them both as pure politicians who will say anything to get elected. Maybe that's what the OP meant about contempt for the public.

In addition, Hillary never could quite get away from her Iraq war vote, and it's possible Romney won't be able to get away from Romney/ObamaCare.

[boytyperanma]

I have issues with trying to put Hillary and Mitt in the same boat. To me their campaign issues seem more opposite then alike.

Hillary was very liked by her Democratic base but was not seen as viable for general election so many Democrats chose Obama as a safer candidate to win in the general. Hillary won most of the bluer states.

Mitt is not liked by the Republican party base but is more seen as more viable in the general election. Mitt lost most the reddest states.

So Hilary was to blue to win in her primary, while Mitt wasn't red enough to win in
his. To me those are very different animals but both get knocked off the evolutionary ladder.

[Marley23]

Hillary was very liked by her Democratic base but was not seen as viable for general election so many Democrats chose Obama as a safer candidate to win in the general. Hillary won most of the bluer states.
I remember people being concerned she just had too much baggage, but I'm not sure how many people voted for Obama for that reason.

[Merijeek]

Romney will likely be the same in 2012 as McCain was in 2008.

They're both shitty years with a terrible field of candidates. McCain got it due to a combination of "Well, it IS kind of his turn this time" and simply being the default candidate.

Same thing that will happen to Romney this year, unless someone really primaries the hell out out of his magic underwear and death panels.

-Joe

[Marley23]

McCain got it due to a combination of "Well, it IS kind of his turn this time" and simply being the default candidate.
McCain got the nomination because the people who got ahead of him early fucked it up. Romney couldn't win over the far right, Huckabee couldn't win over the economic conservatives, Thompson didn't really want the job, and when people got to know Giuliani, they couldn't help noticing what an odious shitheel he is. It's not because everyone decided it was McCain's turn. He'd been left for dead earlier in the campaign.

[Chronos]

OK, so the voters aren't too fond of Romney, but whom do they like better? I mean, someone's got to win the Republican nomination.

[Jackmannii]

Mitt Romney is the new Ed Muskie.

[Merijeek]

McCain got the nomination because the people who got ahead of him early fucked it up. Romney couldn't win over the far right, Huckabee couldn't win over the economic conservatives, Thompson didn't really want the job, and when people got to know Giuliani, they couldn't help noticing what an odious shitheel he is. It's not because everyone decided it was McCain's turn. He'd been left for dead earlier in the campaign.

And after all that he was the default candidate. He didn't win the nomination. He was just all that was left. You know. "Default".

-Joe

[Jas09]

One might consider that if Hillary was running in the GOP primary (that is, in a series of predominantly winner-take-all primaries) she would have won easily.

I believe I heard that the GOP is doing more proportional primaries this time, but I don't have a cite for that. If not, Mitt might not mind being the "new Hillary" since that would be good enough to win easily.

[BobLibDem]

The difference between Hillary 2008 and Mitt 2012 is that you could find enthusiastic Hillary supporters, and Hillary didn't have to disavow her previous experience. Not to mention, you never had to guess whether Hillary was believing the words coming out of her mouth.

[Exapno Mapcase]

The reason Clinton lost is that Obama's staff did a superb job of using an Internet to create a fund-raising and organizational effort that was as large as the establishment's. My memory tells me he earned a lot more money than she did, though he had to do it with much smaller average contributions. The Clinton campaign didn't get the internet in the same way and it cost her. (I didn't get it either, because I thought her mainstream organization would overcome his lack of one.)

The question I have - and asked in other threads to no response - is who on the Republican side is doing this? Someone will emerge as the major opponent to Romney. I've said before that ideology doesn't matter in a presidential campaign; that is, it can take you out but not make you a viable candidate. There are several ideological candidates with strong approval, but I don't see Palin or Bachmann or Paul leveraging those into mainstream runs.

Who's left? Who's raising the most money? Who has the state and county leaders? Who has the phone banks?

If the answer is no one, then it's Romney. But he isn't popular enough to avoid having the opposition coalesce around one candidate. I just can't figure out who that's going to be. None of the usual indicators work. But the principle stands. Whoever has the best organization and the most money wins.

[Voyager]

While Hillary had all the obvious advantages, her campaign was way too confident of success, and there was a lot more dissension than in Obama's campaign. I don't think Romney is going to be disorganized in that way. I think they'll be similar in the sense that they are clear frontrunners who are going to lose, though. Trump's numbers clearly indicate that the Republican base doesn't really like anyone - or that they are complete idiots, also possible.

[Simplicio]

But the principle stands. Whoever has the best organization and the most money wins.

The McCain campaign was in major debt during the early primaries in 2008, and was something of a mess even when the financial situation started to pick up (probably because it had to rehire a bunch of staff and start partially from scratch once it started to win primaries and the money started flowing again). So I think the identity of the candidate is actually more important then the quality of their campaign, at least in some cases.

[The Tooth]

Here's an article (http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20110603/US.Fact.Check.Romney/) which runs a fact check on Mitt's recent statements attacking Obama.

I thought Romney was actually the reasonable version of a Republican. Turns out he's just about as full of crap as the rest of them.

I recall watching him during a Republican debate on Fox in early 2008. He supports torture, but at least he's not a creationist. Or so he said at the time.

[Exapno Mapcase]

The McCain campaign was in major debt during the early primaries in 2008, and was something of a mess even when the financial situation started to pick up (probably because it had to rehire a bunch of staff and start partially from scratch once it started to win primaries and the money started flowing again). So I think the identity of the candidate is actually more important then the quality of their campaign, at least in some cases.

I don't really disagree with this, but my point isn't getting across.

The campaign only starts to matter after the primaries start. You know who lead all the polls in 2007? Rudy Giuliani. By a large margin. But he was never a viable candidate. Huckabee took the Iowa caucuses, as expected, but McCain won New Hampshire. The big money was waiting to see which way things were going to fall. Sure McCain had debt, but who didn't? Who was pulling in the big money previously? New Hampshire was Feb. 5. Was there really any doubt after that?

The year before the election is silly season. Unless they all decide to get behind one candidate, none of this posturing matters to big money. They will back a winner. The wild card is the small donor. But that only works if you can organize them and concentrate their effect.

With everybody just getting into the race I suppose it's too early for any campaign finance reporting to be available. I think it's done by quarters so early October is the date to circle.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

you never had to guess whether Hillary was believing the words coming out of her mouth.

Somehow, I'm hoping you didn't really believe her denunciation of all them pointy-headed economists who advised her on gasoline prices. Damned intellectuals!

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Oh, if you need a cite (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/04/us-usa-politics-idUSN3055017520080504) to jog your memory.

The connection between Hilary and Mitt is that I hate whichever one I'm thinking about at the moment more than the other.

[BobLibDem]

Somehow, I'm hoping you didn't really believe her denunciation of all them pointy-headed economists who advised her on gasoline prices. Damned intellectuals!

Damn, forgot about that one! Still, she has more sincerity in her little finger than Romney has in his large intestine, including the colon.

[Death of Rats]

Romney's biggest problem is that he is even less viable candidate now then when he was not good enough to beat out McCain in '08. Back then he did not have to apologize for supporting most of the things he did as Governor of Massachusetts.

[GIGObuster]

This is a test... this is a test for the reality based Republicans, this is only a test..

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20068782-503544.html
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney broke with many in his party on Friday when he said he believes humans have contributed to global warming.

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," said at a New Hampshire town hall meeting, according to Reuters.

There is widespread consensus within the scientific community that the earth warming and that human beings are at least partially responsible. But many Republicans dispute that conclusion, including Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Inhofe has suggested that global warming is a hoax that "started in the United Nations and the ones in the United States who really grab a hold of this is the Hollywood elite."

[Makes popcorn, gets a lawn chair]

Even Newt has reached for the old chestnut of accusing "left wing intellectuals" as the ones leading the efforts to do something about CO2 emissions. It will be interesting to see the fallout of Romney stepping out of the Tea Party hive mind.

As a commenter said: "Mittens also just lost the Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP votes"

[Two Many Cats]

<snerk> "Mittens"

[Simplicio]

Even Newt has reached for the old chestnut of accusing "left wing intellectuals" as the ones leading the efforts to do something about CO2 emissions. It will be interesting to see the fallout of Romney stepping out of the Tea Party hive mind.

I think Romney's smart to try and go the moderate Republican route. Partially, because he's never going to believably shrug off his history as a moderate Governor (or for that matter, a relatively moderate 2008 GOP primary candidate, at least by 2011 standards) so he mind as well run with it. Partially because the contest for "which candidate can take conservatism to the craziest level of over-kill" has a lot of competitors to split the vote, and finally because for all their talk of doubling down on their message every year, the GOP generally goes with a moderate candidate in the end. Of course this year might be different, but it probably won't be.

So I think he's wise to (kind of sort of) stand up for individual mandates, and (kind of sort of) not endorse the Ryan plan and (kind of sort of) voice concern about Global Warming. So far as I can tell, he's the only candidate doing so, while the others are left to divide up the more doctrinaire conservative vote three or four ways.

[Farmer Jane]

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase;13876133]The reason Clinton lost is that Obama's staff did a superb job of using an Internet to create a fund-raising and organizational effort that was as large as the establishment's. My memory tells me he earned a lot more money than she did, though he had to do it with much smaller average contributions. The Clinton campaign didn't get the internet in the same way and it cost her. (I didn't get it either, because I thought her mainstream organization would overcome his lack of one.)

Obama did just what Dean did - with the added benefit of newer technology. He definitely aimed for a different crowd, where Clinton was more of the old school Democrat.

Hillary Clinton had to deal with 'being a Clinton' in the primaries and 'being Hillary Clinton' in the media. It was easier to pick on her.

The establishment (DNC) was not behind her as it was Senator Obama. It was awful. She was 'old news' and 'a nutcracker' and he was the [not to be mentioned by the staff] 'model minority' candidate. The media picked on Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton. :/

Plus Obama's campaign was drama free and he was so calm and cool no one noticed that he didn't actually say much. The talking heads did most of it.

[MacTech]

I'm not voting for him, and yes the mormonism is a factor, but with me being such a hardline Atheist, I'd have issues with any religious candidate (had similar issues with Palin.....)

To me, the bigger problem with Mitt is that he's a politician from Nannychusets, and the last thing I want is to have him push more Mass. style Nannystatism on the rest of the nation....

Plus, as a lifelong Mainer, I have this ingrained hatred of Massachusets....

[Try2B Comprehensive]

I think Romney's smart to try and go the moderate Republican route.

The catch though is that these days moderate Republican = Democrat. It is the people on the extremes who are most upset with Obama. Romney can only take so many votes from Obama from the middle, since as the pubs have moved to the right, the dems have followed to claim the territory they left behind.

As for the OP, turns out Romney is kind of a charlatan now that he's following the GOP script. Hillary wasn't beyond reproach, but she wasn't a charlatan. So the simple answer is no.

[Lantern]

There are some similarities. Romneycare is having a similar effect on his campaign as Hillary's Iraq vote. But I don't see the Republican Obama this year : someone who is charismatic and runs a brilliant campaign which manages to woo the base without alienating the establishment. In terms of his political positioning I think Pawlenty could run such a campaign but he lacks the personal charisma.

So the relevant comparison might be Kerry who like Romney was a front-runner who wasn't much liked but managed to win the nomination on the electability plank. If Romney can convince GOP voters that he has the best shot of beating Obama he will probably win.

The interesting question is whether the GOP primary voters are more like the Democratic voters in 2004 or 2008. Like in 2004 they are facing an incumbent who they want to remove at all cost. Like in 2008 they are coming off a mid-term election victory which makes them less likely to settle for mere electability.

[Richard Parker]

Hillary was very liked by her Democratic base but was not seen as viable for general election so many Democrats chose Obama as a safer candidate to win in the general. Hillary won most of the bluer states.

Er, no. Of the top ten bluest states by partisan advantage, Hillary won three and Obama won seven.

Even if you extend it out to the next bluest states, Obama will won more of them. Hillary won MI, CA, NJ, and MA, but Obama won WA, OR, MN, WI, and ME.

[Marley23]

The establishment (DNC) was not behind her as it was Senator Obama. It was awful. She was 'old news' and 'a nutcracker' and he was the [not to be mentioned by the staff] 'model minority' candidate.
The establishment was very much behind her. That didn't start to change until Obama made them think he could win.

[Chronos]

Quoth CitizenPained:
Obama did just what Dean did - with the added benefit of newer technology.Or at least, he did what Dean tried to do. Obviously Obama had more success with it.

[aceplace57]

I'd say Mitt is the new Michael Dukakis.

Both men are very smart. But they come across as boring and uninspired.

They tried staging events to make Dukakis edgy and more interesting. Resulting in the infamous tank photo. There were other misfires but the tank photo is the most cringe worthy.

[gravitycrash]

That's basically the problem the party has right now. They need the Tea Party's enthusiasm, but the more they adopt its positions, the more problems they have with moderate and independent voters.

Romney does have one problem in common with Hillary Clinton in that a lot of people see them both as pure politicians who will say anything to get elected. Maybe that's what the OP meant about contempt for the public.

That's a really good summary of how people like me feel about ol mitt.

Also I'm embarrassed to admit but I thought Romney declared that he was in the race months ago, ha.

[Marley23]

Also I'm embarrassed to admit but I thought Romney declared that he was in the race months ago, ha.
He has been running since November 5, 2008. I don't like the way the press covers these campaign formalities. It creates a lot of free publicity.

[An Arky]

Is it possible that none of the Republican candidates are viable because, well, they're Republican? There's just not a lot of enthusiasm for them outside of the big square states where they eschew book learnin'.

[gravitycrash]

Is it possible that none of the Republican candidates are viable because, well, they're Republican? There's just not a lot of enthusiasm for them outside of the big square states where they eschew book learnin'.

If you were a Republican would you want to vote for any of these clowns? I gotta tell ya, Obama is looking better to me every day in comparison.

I shouldn't lump Pawlenty in there I guess, instead he belongs in my NODOZ grouping.

[Crane]

A lively contest between Palin and Romney could dominate the media for a while, just as it did with Obama/Hillary. The Republicans have to do something to draw crowds and keep them awake. A knock down drag out between Palin and Romney could be fun. Especially compared to a Romney/Pawlenty debate - snore!!

Crane

[Onomatopoeia]

If you were a Republican would you want to vote for any of these clowns? I gotta tell ya, Obama is looking better to me every day in comparison.

I shouldn't lump Pawlenty in there I guess, instead he belongs in my NODOZ grouping.Nah. Anyone who says "we have to turn toward god" during a political campaign goes into the clown group. Pawlenty's genuflecting to the Tea Party and religious right, like most of the Republican field.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

A knock down drag out between Palin and Romney could be fun.


He'll beat their girl, but always treat her like a lady. This will win some of the Tea Partiers.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

This will win some of the Tea Partiers. After a few months of "Garsh, Mitt, that kinda sounds like more of your Obama-lite [big wink] socialist stuff to me. We Christians [bigger wink] kinda believe in small business, no taxes, and God, not any of these fancy liberal ex-Governor of Massachusetts Inside the Beltway business as usual Communistical idears....",
they'll be ready to hang him.

[Onomatopoeia]

A lively contest between Palin and Romney could dominate the media for a while, just as it did with Obama/Hillary. The Republicans have to do something to draw crowds and keep them awake. A knock down drag out between Palin and Romney could be fun. Especially compared to a Romney/Pawlenty debate - snore!!

CraneA Palin/Romney internecine fight would be an absolute cringe-o-rama, what with Palin spouting every piece of nonsense that springs into her oh, so tiny mind, and Romney changing positions so often that a chameleon would be envious.

[Cyberhwk]

After a few months of "Garsh, Mitt, that kinda sounds like more of your Obama-lite [big wink] socialist stuff to me. We Christians [bigger wink] kinda believe in small business, no taxes, and God, not any of these fancy liberal ex-Governor of Massachusetts Inside the Beltway business as usual Communistical idears....",
they'll be ready to hang him.
So could he buck conventional wisdom and do it in reverse? Run to the middle during the primary then to the RIGHT during the general?

He isn't going to get the right flank anyway. If he went to the center maybe he could pick up disaffected moderate Republicans (what's left of them anyways), or some cross over Dems scared they just may be batshit enough to nominate someone like Palin. Hopefully this allows him to trounce in New Hampshire and you're probably in a 2-3 way race. Don't know how the GOP aportions delegates, but who could beat him in places like New York, or California? Then, if successful, get someone to appeal to the right in the VP slot (DeMint has been quiet lately). Then together they play the "Would you rather we have four more years of OBAMA?!?!" card during the general.

If the economy stays bad, you've got Romney playing to his strengths (economy and a Chief Executive) and probably some pretty pissed off people in the center that could be had. If the economy improves, they likely had little chance no matter what they did.

Not saying the idea doesn't suck, but, although it's early yet, it doesn't seem like they have a whole lot of other options at this point. :p

[Crane]

The problem in the primary is the right wing base. Don't underestimate the Mormon issue. It may not make a difference in the general election, but it could swing the primary.

Crane

[ElvisL1ves]

Still, probably not nearly as much as the pandering/flipflopping issue.

[Exapno Mapcase]

The problem in the primary is the right wing base. Don't underestimate the Mormon issue. It may not make a difference in the general election, but it could swing the primary.

Crane

Who will the right wing base coalesce behind? Palin isn't running, Bachmann has no national support, no non-professional politician will get anything but a third party nomination so Cain, Davis and Karger are out, Johnson is too libertarian, so Paul is beyond any chance. Gingrich? Santorum? Who?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

The problem in the primary is the right wing base. Don't underestimate the Mormon issue. It may not make a difference in the general election, but it could swing the primary.

Crane

See JFK in 1960 though.

[Crane]

Very different. Much of the base considers Mormons to be non-Christian. That argument can be stirred by Palin. All she has to do is emphasize that she is a Christian. The base will get the message.

Just watch.

Crane

[Marley23]

Very different. Much of the base considers Mormons to be non-Christian.
A lot of people felt that way about Catholics back then, and some still do.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Whatever. Mormons are less annoying than Evangelicals, so at the very least Romney can play the 'could be worse' card.

[Manda JO]

Who will the right wing base coalesce behind? Palin isn't running, Bachmann has no national support, no non-professional politician will get anything but a third party nomination so Cain, Davis and Karger are out, Johnson is too libertarian, so Paul is beyond any chance. Gingrich? Santorum? Who?

They can stay home.

[boytyperanma]

Whatever. Mormons are less annoying than Evangelicals, so at the very least Romney can play the 'could be worse' card.

lol I doubt he'll play that card Republicans need the Evangelical vote to win.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

lol I doubt he'll play that card Republicans need the Evangelical vote to win.

Yet ironically, that helps them lose.

[Chronos]

Let's not forget that Glenn Beck is a Latter-Day Saint, too. Presumably, anyone who's still willing to listen to him on politics is willing to elect one, too.

[Marley23]

Beck's moment in the sun is over, not that his peak viewership was enough to swing the GOP primaries. And from what I can tell, on his show he was pretty quiet about being a Mormon.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Er, no. Of the top ten bluest states by partisan advantage, Hillary won three and Obama won seven.

Even if you extend it out to the next bluest states, Obama will won more of them. Hillary won MI, CA, NJ, and MA, but Obama won WA, OR, MN, WI, and ME.

At least as far as Michigan is concerned, they were still being punished by the DNC for moving their primary up. Hillary still had her name on the ballot, as did Kucinich and, I believe, a couple more people, but the rest of the candidates pledged to not run in Michigan. Actually, I believed Hillary "missed the deadline" to get he name off, as did Kucinich. Despite that, "Uncommitted" became the de facto vote for Obama and "Uncommitted" won in an awful lot of cities in Michigan and, if you look at the results, had a helluva lot of votes, despite not even being for a candidate. It's not that it was anti-Hillary; it was just pro-Obama.

Here (http://www.co.wayne.mi.us/documents/Jan152008_PrimResultDem_Cert_131200895910.pdf)are the primary results from 2008 from the most populous county in Michigan, and the highest engine of Democratic voters in the state.

[Exapno Mapcase]

They can stay home.

I'm trying to envision a future in which the movement conservatives all stay home rather than putting up a candidate to topple Romney. I can't. Can you seriously see this? Are you saying they're going to just write off the last two years? They got a shift to a Republican majority in the House but now they'll sit on their hands?

I know I talked about this being the silly season earlier. But nothing's that silly.

[gonzomax]

Hillary was a huge front runner and most thought she was a sure bet to get the nomination. Romney is one of a secretarial pool of Republicans ,without a front runner. Not one of them has shown the ability to cross the divides within the party, let alone lure Dems and independents.
I am not sure Romney can win over the Tea Baggers. He has a healthcare problem and a religious problem. You can not wave them away.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Hillary was a huge front runner and most thought she was a sure bet to get the nomination. Romney is one of a secretarial pool of Republicans ,without a front runner. Not one of them has shown the ability to cross the divides within the party, let alone lure Dems and independents.
I am not sure Romney can win over the Tea Baggers. He has a healthcare problem and a religious problem. You can not wave them away.


That's not accurate either. Romney raised 10 million bucks in one day not too long ago. Most of these candidates will have trouble raising 10 million in their entire campaign. I'd say Romney is the clear frontrunner.

[gonzomax]

That's not accurate either. Romney raised 10 million bucks in one day not too long ago. Most of these candidates will have trouble raising 10 million in their entire campaign. I'd say Romney is the clear frontrunner.

Polling shows a stain of Republican candidates in a blob. There is no front runner. Hell Trump was front runner a couple weeks ago.
Today it is the horn dog Giuliani who is front runner.

[Marley23]

That's all name recognition. There's no front-runner at this point.

[gonzomax]

Which is why Romney is not like Hillary. She was way ahead and on a roll.
Romney is like Bush, another spoiled rich guy who thinks the presidency belongs to him if he decides he wants it.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Polling shows a stain of Republican candidates in a blob. There is no front runner. Hell Trump was front runner a couple weeks ago.
Today it is the horn dog Giuliani who is front runner.

There's a reason the White House has been tying to torpedo Mitt's chances by linking healthcare to what Romney passed in Massachusetts, no?

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Which is why Romney is not like Hillary. She was way ahead and on a roll.
Romney is like Bush, another spoiled rich guy who thinks the presidency belongs to him if he decides he wants it.

While his methods may be questionable, I believe Romney made his own money.

[Exapno Mapcase]

I was just reminded about Rick Perry. He's been making noises that seem to be feints to judge support. If he can get some backing I'd say he's the ideal anti-Romney. Paleoconservative, actually has a job,* from a big state with plenty of media attention, no major enemies in the party that I'm aware of.

Whether he can get nominated or elected is a different question. But as the person that the right-wing of the party can get behind? He's head and shoulders over the others.

*Anybody notice that no sitting Senators are in the race? When was the last time that happened?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

A lot of people felt that way about Catholics back then, and some still do.

Indeed and its also quite possible to consider Mormonism to be a heresy (as much as Islam is) and yet vote for the candidate because he has the best policies.

Whatever. Mormons are less annoying than Evangelicals, so at the very least Romney can play the 'could be worse' card.

What makes you say that? They're just as proselytizing as the Evangelicals.

[gonzomax]

While his methods may be questionable, I believe Romney made his own money.

Believe if you want, but his dad was Gov., of Michigan, a hugely successful salesman , and head of American Motors. He also ran for president.

[Manda JO]

I'm trying to envision a future in which the movement conservatives all stay home rather than putting up a candidate to topple Romney. I can't. Can you seriously see this? Are you saying they're going to just write off the last two years? They got a shift to a Republican majority in the House but now they'll sit on their hands?

I know I talked about this being the silly season earlier. But nothing's that silly.

There's a spectrum of political devotion, you know. For every fundamentalist who froths at the mouth at political rallies, there are twenty who are mostly concerned with their kids, their jobs, their churches, their immediate concerns. Those people generally vote the way their church seems to be leaning, but if they have a deep internal discomfort with an aspect of the candidate, I can very well see quite a few being too busy to vote come election day. especially in the primaries. I grew up in Alabama, and I've known a lot of people that would be really, really uncomfortable voting for someone they perceive as non-Christian, regardless of any other considerations. The trick is whether or not they would perceive him as non-Christian.

[Crane]

Exapno,

Palin isn't running - yet.

Crane

[Onomatopoeia]

Exapno,

Palin isn't running - yet.

CranePalin isn't running.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

What makes you say that? They're just as proselytizing as the Evangelicals.

Personal experience. The only way to deal with Evangelicals is generally to avoid them altogether. They are divisive, period. Mormons seem to have the ability to drop the act and interact with a person as a person.

Maybe my experience is merely limited. The annoyingness of Evangelicals is hard to top in any case. Did they ever even get the memo that this isn't 1650?

Fortunately we don't have to fuck around with either one. We have Obama until 0'16.

[Implicit]

Palin isn't running.
Technically. Exploratory committees, bus tours, fundraising fireside chats, whatever the euphemism is today doesn't matter, it's campaigning and that's what running for office is. Yeah, I know they haven't filed with the FEC, but I don't know why anyone considers these coy maneuvers anything but the first phase of running for President.

[Oy!]

Because actually running would require a lot of financial disclosure and some degree of self-disciplined work, and would be very unlikely to result in a win for Palin. By not running, but not saying, she garners an endless amount of public attention and the ability to use PAC funds with virtually no oversight, plus she ends up being able to look like she is a serious factor in the decision making of the Republican committee. If she doesn't run, she and her fans can continue to believe that if she had, she might have won. She also gets to feel like Kingmaker.

It'd actually an ideal situation for Palin. Huge amounts of attention, no actual responsibility, no opposition, people throwing money at her, and adoring fans wherever she goes, begging her to run for President. Why would she actually run for President? She gets almost all of the perks with almost none of the hassle simply by not running, but not ruling it out.

[Marley23]

Why would she actually run for President?
Never underestimate a politician's ego.

[Merijeek]

Indeed and its also quite possible to consider Mormonism to be a heresy (as much as Islam is) and yet vote for the candidate because he has the best policies.

Snort. Yeah, right. Keep 'em coming.

-Joe

[Oy!]

Never underestimate a politician's ego.

Yes, and from what I've read, Palin's is the size of Alaska. But I suspect there are enough people around her with clear enough vision to recognize that she has virtually no chance of winning, and manipulate her into not running and keeping the cash cow going.

The minute she declares, she will not only be expected to get more serious in her discussions (something which she might well dismiss), but she'll be subject to all those pesky campaign finance regs, which can't be brushed aside so easily. From what I've read, Palin's always had trouble making a distinction between her own funds and those relating to whatever position she's holding, so this may not strike her personally as a problem, but the people around her surely can see it. Because she's such an egotist and falls so readily into the belief that she's being persecuted, it shouldn't be too hard for her people to manipulate her into not running. Since they are almost certainly milking the cash cow themselves, I'd think they'd have every reason to do so.

[Marley23]

But I suspect there are enough people around her with clear enough vision to recognize that she has virtually no chance of winning, and manipulate her into not running and keeping the cash cow going.
There isn't that much to debate here, really. She'll run or she won't, and I've been saying for a long time that she will. I started to change my mind the last few months and then she started up with this bus tour nonsense. If she's interested, her advisers aren't going to talk her out of it. And I think you're assuming she'd hire good advisers.

[Clothahump]

It's true that Romney has had trouble winning over parts of the conversative establishment (because he's not a hardline conservative) ...

Hardline? It's debatable that he's a conservative at all. RINO at best.

[Quartz]

But is she going to be running for P or VP? The VP spot is - apart from the awkward problem of possible promotion - one for which she is better suited. Roving cheerleader and all that. And very little to actually do fuck up.

[Marley23]

Hardline? It's debatable that he's a conservative at all. RINO at best.
And this is the problem the GOP has now. I guess it could also be a terminology problem since you don't hear much about liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats anymore. Romney is a Republican who convinced an overwhelmingly Democratic state to elect him, but he can't run on anything he did in office because it makes him a RINO. So even more than in 2008, he's been disavowing his entire record and saying a bunch of stuff no one thinks he believes because that's the only way he even has a chance at the primaries. Of course he's a Republican - he's a devoutly religious billionaire. ;) No, he's not very conservative. He wouldn't have been elected in Massachusetts otherwise. Michael Bloomberg is a RINO: he was a registered Democrat who joined the GOP when he was running for mayor because they had an easier primary field, he never had any particular link to the GOP (although I'm sure many of his friends and associates are Republicans) and later left the party to be an independent.

[Exapno Mapcase]

There's a spectrum of political devotion, you know. For every fundamentalist who froths at the mouth at political rallies, there are twenty who are mostly concerned with their kids, their jobs, their churches, their immediate concerns. Those people generally vote the way their church seems to be leaning, but if they have a deep internal discomfort with an aspect of the candidate, I can very well see quite a few being too busy to vote come election day. especially in the primaries. I grew up in Alabama, and I've known a lot of people that would be really, really uncomfortable voting for someone they perceive as non-Christian, regardless of any other considerations. The trick is whether or not they would perceive him as non-Christian.

My entire point is that the community you're talking about is absolutely certainly going to get together to back a candidate in the primaries who isn't Romney. Whether they would vote for Romney in the election is a wholly different matter and irrelevant to anything I'm saying.

Exapno,

Palin isn't running - yet.

Crane

Palin isn't running.

Like the others here I had my doubts until her bus tour started. Back in early March Fox News suspended the contracts of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum just because they were making noises about thinking about running. Their actual contracts ended in early May so they are no longer employed there. But the contracts ended before any official announcement.

Palin's "family vacation" would in any sane world - i.e. one governed by the Federal Elections Commission - be considered an action toward a campaign. Unless everyone involved knew she wasn't running and only doing it for money and publicity. I can't imagine that she and Roger Ailes didn't sit down and talk this all out ahead of time. It's proof that she's not running, not proof that she is.

[Onomatopoeia]

Technically. Exploratory committees, bus tours, fundraising fireside chats, whatever the euphemism is today doesn't matter, it's campaigning and that's what running for office is. Yeah, I know they haven't filed with the FEC, but I don't know why anyone considers these coy maneuvers anything but the first phase of running for President.Let me rephrase for clarity: Palin isn't going to run.

[Voyager]

Palin isn't running.

Like the others here I had my doubts until her bus tour started. Back in early March Fox News suspended the contracts of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum just because they were making noises about thinking about running. Their actual contracts ended in early May so they are no longer employed there. But the contracts ended before any official announcement.

Palin's "family vacation" would in any sane world - i.e. one governed by the Federal Elections Commission - be considered an action toward a campaign. Unless everyone involved knew she wasn't running and only doing it for money and publicity. I can't imagine that she and Roger Ailes didn't sit down and talk this all out ahead of time. It's proof that she's not running, not proof that she is.

I don't think you'd know how that conversation went without seeing their respective ratings. If Palin is drawing viewers to Fox, she'll be allowed on until it becomes official.
Of course, Palin staging an event to take attention away for Mitt's announcement is just an accident.
She might not run if the money were right - but she seemed to be sinking into irrelevancy before the bus tour, so she might do it out of ego. And any adviser who told her not to run because she couldn't win is not going to stay an adviser for long.
Why would she move to Arizona except to be closer to the center of things?

[Voyager]

Hardline? It's debatable that he's a conservative at all. RINO at best.

Only if R means Radical or Reactionary. But just go on excluding large chunks of the country from your party. Works for me, and exclude all the RINOs from history - Eisenhower, Nixon, Rockefeller, Ford, Henry Cabot Lodge, Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln - and of course that blatant RINO Ronald Reagan. He saved Social Security - what a Socialist!

[gonzomax]

Palin would likely destroy her money making ,pander to tea baggers, say what the right wants to hear, bandwagon if she ran. When it comes to doing a job she was elected to, and making money, she has already shown what she will do.
The president does not make enough money for her to quit being Fox's sweetheart and the baggers leader.

[Voyager]

Palin would likely destroy her money making ,pander to tea baggers, say what the right wants to hear, bandwagon if she ran. When it comes to doing a job she was elected to, and making money, she has already shown what she will do.
The president does not make enough money for her to quit being Fox's sweetheart and the baggers leader.

But think how much she'd make after she was president. If someone else gets the nomination, the attention will turn from her. Sure, at the moment she is increasing diversity at Fox (not being a blonde) but once her ratings or breasts sag, she is out of there.

[Crane]

I believe Palin has to run in order to maintain her celebrity status, otherwise she is old news.

Consider the legacy - she would be the first major party woman candidate for President. The Republicans would like to capture that title. She can draw crowds and carry the Conservative message against an incumbent. The Republicans have a small chance of winning in 2012 so a flag bearer is a good candidate.

For Palin, she gets all of the glory without the need to win. But, if she does win, her legacy is even greater, and she will cash in on the really big bucks. Where's the downside?

Crane

[Marley23]

Consider the legacy - she would be the first major party woman candidate for President.
Hillary Clinton, Carol Mosley Braun, Elizabeth Dole, Shirley Chisholm... you mean she would be the first nominee if she were able to get that far. Which is far from guaranteed.

[Crane]

I stand corrected.

Crane

[Chronos]

It probably wouldn't stop her from claiming that title, though.

[Crane]

She would be the first party nominee for president.

Crane

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Unless Obama grows horns, I don't think the GOP has much of a chance no matter who they nominate.

If Palin somehow gets the nomination she might make a great sacrificial lamb. Nobody who might be viable in '16 has to get branded a loser. And it would take credit away from Obama- "he's not that great, he won because Palin was a stinker!" The GOP can blame Palin, claim to have learned their lesson, and who knows, maybe they'll quit acting so crazy afterwards.

Nah, probably not the last one.

[gonzomax]

Palin is big on the conservative speaking tours. She makes a lot of money giving her keen insights to right wingers. Apparently she has plenty of offers and is making a ton of money.
Running for president would cost her money. But people in politics start believing their own lies after awhile. They see a sea of followers wildly cheering them every place they go. Eventually, they begin to believe everybody is like them and everybody loves them. It is difficult to stay grounded, especially since everyone around her is praising her for being a great American and a great politician.
She would get bitch slapped in a presidential race. But the real fear is, what if she won?
Could she keep the rich and powerful in back of her? Many must believe she is a kind of joke that they support to poke at the Dems. But if she got serious, would they stay?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Palin is big on the conservative speaking tours. She makes a lot of money giving her keen insights to right wingers. Apparently she has plenty of offers and is making a ton of money.
Running for president would cost her money. But people in politics start believing their own lies after awhile. They see a sea of followers wildly cheering them every place they go. Eventually, they begin to believe everybody is like them and everybody loves them. It is difficult to stay grounded, especially since everyone around her is praising her for being a great American and a great politician.
She would get bitch slapped in a presidential race. But the real fear is, what if she won?
Could she keep the rich and powerful in back of her? Many must believe she is a kind of joke that they support to poke at the Dems. But if she got serious, would they stay?

Why wouldn't they? This is crazy talk.

[boytyperanma]

Why wouldn't they? This is crazy talk.

Because she's unpredictable and doesn't feel she owes anyone anything. The real moneyed Republican interests will have no interest in funding a Palin campaign, there is no guarantee she'll ever make good on her promises to them.

Someone like Romney even though he isn't getting the public support can still get the establishment behind him. He's a legacy of saner Republican times, he's an actual businessman that will play ball for money. If he makes it through the primary, he can turn to the moneyed interests and get them behind him. He's plays the 'you rub my back, I rub your back' politics well.

In my opinion between Palin or Romney in the event they won the Republican primary, Romney could fund a competing campaign against Obama, while Palin would be left in the dust.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Because she's unpredictable and doesn't feel she owes anyone anything. The real moneyed Republican interests will have no interest in funding a Palin campaign, there is no guarantee she'll ever make good on her promises to them.

Someone like Romney even though he isn't getting the public support can still get the establishment behind him. He's a legacy of saner Republican times, he's an actual businessman that will play ball for money. If he makes it through the primary, he can turn to the moneyed interests and get them behind him. He's plays the 'you rub my back, I rub your back' politics well.

In my opinion between Palin or Romney in the event they won the Republican primary, Romney could fund a competing campaign against Obama, while Palin would be left in the dust.

I'm not sure about how unpredictable she is, given she's not Senator McCain's running mate.

[boytyperanma]

I'm not sure about how unpredictable she is, given she's not Senator McCain's running mate.

Well lots of people donated money to her campaign for governor and she up and quit before doing anything she promised to do. So she's already proven to be unpredictable and willing to fuck over her donors for her own personal gain.

Do you think the those donors are willing to give her a second shot? What about other that have seen that as an example?

She doesn't play ball with the rest of the team. She may be a really great pitcher and the fans may show up to watch her play but unless the rest of the team is willing to show up behind her she's got no chance of winning the game. She's better off just signing autographs to make her money.

She can rally supporters but she can't gather enough money to win the presidency.

Romney has proven himself capable of raising money and shown he is willing to sacrifice character to get his donors what they want. He's taking tough blows for what he got done in MA and at times I'm sure he knew things he did or said would come back to haunt him. He was willing to say and do in MA what it took to get elected and deliver on the promises to those who funded him.

[Elendil's Heir]

...and of course that blatant RINO Ronald Reagan. He saved Social Security - what a Socialist!

And raised taxes, ran up deficits to unprecedented levels, supported nuclear disarmament, and signed an immigration amnesty bill into law. So of course he's a conservative hero today!

There are some superficial similarities between Hillary '08 and Mitt '12, I suppose, but more that's different. Obama is still beatable, given the sluggish economy, but I think I have yet to see the Republican who's going to do it.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Well lots of people donated money to her campaign for governor and she up and quit before doing anything she promised to do. So she's already proven to be unpredictable and willing to fuck over her donors for her own personal gain.

Do you think the those donors are willing to give her a second shot? What about other that have seen that as an example?

She doesn't play ball with the rest of the team. She may be a really great pitcher and the fans may show up to watch her play but unless the rest of the team is willing to show up behind her she's got no chance of winning the game. She's better off just signing autographs to make her money.

She can rally supporters but she can't gather enough money to win the presidency.

Romney has proven himself capable of raising money and shown he is willing to sacrifice character to get his donors what they want. He's taking tough blows for what he got done in MA and at times I'm sure he knew things he did or said would come back to haunt him. He was willing to say and do in MA what it took to get elected and deliver on the promises to those who funded him.

Personally, I don't think she's running, at least not for the long haul. However, yeah, she can fundraise like a boss.

[ElvisL1ves]

And, I suspect, has found a way to keep most of it.