I'm calling it: Romney will be the nominee

[foolsguinea]

Have I done this yet?

Well, he will be. The GOP has not changed enough that someone else can beat the hair apparent.

[waterj2]

I'd have to lean toward Romney myself. Everyone else running seems to be in the "can't possibly win" category, for one reason or another. I don't really see how Romney could win, either, but his weaknesses seem less fatal.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Most likely yes. Although that means Romney has to win next year to avoid the Republicans going to the extreme, McGovern route in 2016,

[Locrian]

That's guaranteed. If he picks an idiotic woman as a running mate, he'll win two states. :D

[Mosier]

Have I done this yet?

Well, he will be. The GOP has not changed enough that someone else can beat the hair apparent.

The GOP has beaten the heir apparent plenty of times. Remember when McCain was leading Bush II by a wide margin, much later in the cycle?

[Simplicio]

The GOP has beaten the heir apparent plenty of times. Remember when McCain was leading Bush II by a wide margin, much later in the cycle?

No (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2rep.htm)

[Airman Doors, USAF]

It's a bit premature to be definitive about it, but I strongly suspect you're right. Unless he has any as-yet undiscovered skeletons in his closet he should be the nominee. I dread to think about who else it will be.

Even so, all will be for naught. he's not "conservative" enough for some, and not nearly "liberal" enough for the democrats to swallow, even if Obama is somehow at risk come election time. Add to that the fact that he's a Mormon and he doesn't have a chance. The Republicans will have to do a lot of soul-searching and reinvention before they have a real shot at the Presidency.

[waterj2]

Most likely yes. Although that means Romney has to win next year to avoid the Republicans going to the extreme, McGovern route in 2016,It does look like there's a good chance that if the GOP passes up this opportunity to nominate a crazy extremist, they might take the next chance.

I'm fine with whatever keeps them out of power until sane people take over the party.

[Chronos]

Perry has a pretty good chance, if he declares soon. And Bachmann could still pull it off. Of course, neither of them has a chance unless everything goes absolutely into the toilet in the next year. And I really can't see anyone but one of those three getting it-- The only other person that even seems remotely close is Tim Palenty, but nobody actually likes him, and what little following he has would be completely eclipsed by Perry. Everyone else in the race is either running for Vice President, trying to shift the Overton Window one way or the other, or trying to get some publicity to cash in on.

[flickster]

Oh joy, almost as big a RINO as McCain

[Recovering Republican]

Perry has a pretty good chance, if he declares soon. And Bachmann could still pull it off. Of course, neither of them has a chance unless everything goes absolutely into the toilet in the next year. And I really can't see anyone but one of those three getting it-- The only other person that even seems remotely close is Tim Palenty, but nobody actually likes him, and what little following he has would be completely eclipsed by Perry. Everyone else in the race is either running for Vice President, trying to shift the Overton Window one way or the other, or trying to get some publicity to cash in on.

Guy...

EVERYTHING IS IN THE TOILET NOW!!!

As far as Romney, he won't be the nominee for the following reasons.

1) The Evangelicals hate him because he's a Mormon.
2) The Tea Partiers hate him because he's the guy who invented ObamaCare.
3) Most conservatives hate him because he's a phony.

Once Perry gets into it, he'll quickly eclipse this guy.

And then beating Obama will be an easy task.

[Finagle]

Have I done this yet?

Well, he will be. The GOP has not changed enough that someone else can beat the hair apparent.

If "hair apparent" was all that was needed, Trump would have gotten the nod.

[CaptMurdock]

Once Perry gets into it, he'll quickly eclipse this guy.

And then beating Obama will be an easy task.

Perry can't even beat Obama in a poll in his own state!!! (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_TX_629513.pdf) :D

[flickster]

Perry can't even beat Obama in a poll in his own state!!! (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_TX_629513.pdf) :D

I would question public policy's poll on this one. I'm not a big Perry supporter, but can assure you that a slug would have a better chance than Obama within the state of Texas

[Chefguy]

That would be too bad. If I had to pick one of that sorry assortment, it would be Huntsman, only because he's the only candidate who hasn't signed any those onerous "pledges" from tax morons like Grover Norquist and the right-to-life crazies. His statement about them is simple: I owe my allegiance to my flag and my wife.

[jtgain]

I think that Romney will win and Romney will pull a McCain in 08, Dole in 96, and Bush in 92. Be a lukewarm GOP party guy with no clear message, adopt whatever policy seems to win over focus groups, and have absolutely no enthusiasm behind him.

He will get his 160 EV and go home. Maybe by 2016 we will have someone that can run without looking like a total fool.

[Jas09]

Once Perry gets into it, he'll quickly eclipse this guy.

And then beating Obama will be an easy task.Money-making opportunity: http://www.intrade.com/?request_operation=main&request_type=action&checkHomePage=true

Rick Perry currently trading at 23.8. Get in quick for easy money.

More realistically, Rick Perry needs to start doing the things that being a candidate require - raising money for a start. You may have heard that Obama brought in 85 million last quarter. One more quarter like that and Perry has some major catching up to do. He's not, as far as I know, independently wealthy like Romney.

[Little Nemo]

I think that Romney will win and Romney will pull a McCain in 08, Dole in 96, and Bush in 92. Be a lukewarm GOP party guy with no clear message, adopt whatever policy seems to win over focus groups, and have absolutely no enthusiasm behind him.That's the way I'm seeing it. Romney's letting the other candidates burn out early while he waits for the real process to begin. Unless Perry jumps in soon, Romney will get the nomination by default.

But he might end up running his campaign for the general election on the same strategy. Figure that a lot of voters will want to vote against Obama and he'll win by default.

But what worked against Huckabee, Trump, Palin, Bachmann, and others won't be as effective against Obama. Obama is after all the President - he has a lot more stature than a rival nomination candidate. Romney needs to do more than convince people they shouldn't vote for Barack Obama - he needs to convince them they should vote for Mitt Romney. Otherwise, "I guess I won't vote" will win the election, Obama will get get the silver medal and a second term, and Romney will get third place.

[Wesley Clark]

I doubt it. The tea party will make up a major % of primary voters, and Romney is not popular with them.

[jtgain]

What is telling to me is how the polls show Obama beating every potential Republican candidate. He slaughters Bachmann and Palin, and still beats Romney by 5 or 6 points.

But if you match him with a "generic" Republican, the Republican wins by 7! It seems that the voters are aching for someone out there who can articulate the Republican position and take a hold of things. The problems is that no one has done that and I don't think that anyone in the current crop is able.

I thought that Gingrich or Santorum might have a chance, but both of them are stuck in a time warp that makes them unable to see past 1993, and they keep saying the same talking points that they used then.

[jtgain]

I doubt it. The tea party will make up a major % of primary voters, and Romney is not popular with them.

"major" does not equal "majority"

The tea party can't get more than 25 to 30 percent of the GOP primary vote. It happened to Buchanan in 96, Pat Robertson in 88, and Paul Tsongas (from the other side) in 92.

When there are 11 candidates in the race, Michelle Bachman can win with 23% of the vote. When there are two or three, she still has only 23% of the vote.

[shiftless]

It's a bit premature to be definitive about it, but I strongly suspect you're right. Unless he has any as-yet undiscovered skeletons in his closet he should be the nominee. I dread to think about who else it will be.

Even so, all will be for naught. he's not "conservative" enough for some, and not nearly "liberal" enough for the democrats to swallow, even if Obama is somehow at risk come election time. Add to that the fact that he's a Mormon and he doesn't have a chance. The Republicans will have to do a lot of soul-searching and reinvention before they have a real shot at the Presidency.

That is why Mitt is going to need a VP candidate to fill in the blanks. A regular Christian who the conservatives will like yet is still willing to be a little different in certain situations. Someone from outside the Beltway elite, a Maverick. It would be nice if it was a woman, to capture that vote too. Where will the GOP find such a person?

All in all I agree with your assessment, Mitt is the most solid candidate out there on many issues. I liked his style, if not many of his words, in the debate more so than any of the other GOPers. Mitt can hardly pull together the Republican base though, much less lure the middle (where I fancy myself) over to the right.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

When there are 11 candidates in the race, Michelle Bachman can win with 23% of the vote. When there are two or three, she still has only 23% of the vote.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/07/bachmann-continues-to-surge.html

She's beating Romney by scoring in the low 20s with lots o' candidates, but still beating him 44%-41% in a one-on-one match.

[Wesley Clark]

"major" does not equal "majority"

The tea party can't get more than 25 to 30 percent of the GOP primary vote. It happened to Buchanan in 96, Pat Robertson in 88, and Paul Tsongas (from the other side) in 92.

When there are 11 candidates in the race, Michelle Bachman can win with 23% of the vote. When there are two or three, she still has only 23% of the vote.

Exit polls from the 2010 election showed 2/3 of GOP voters in the general election were tea party supporters. They also put up a lot of crap candidates in the senate because the tea party won the primary elections and then lost the general since they were too radical.

I tend to think/hope they will sabotage the GOP in 2012. They are trying to put up dolts like Bachmann.

[Exapno Mapcase]

We've been saying all along that Romney is the establishment candidate, the one with the most backing, organization, and money, which makes him by far the most likely nominee. The only actual political disagreement - as opposed to the talking point nonsense that's drowned any real analysis - is over which opponent the extreme conservative wing will coalesce behind. It may be Bachmann or it may be Perry if he finally decides to get into the race. He keeps dipping his toe but doesn't seem to want to get wet. Yes, Bachmann does well in Iowa, but Iowa is about as non-representative a state as can be found, which is why winners of its caucus never get farther unless they happen to be the establishment candidate who was going to take it all anyway. The poll cited by The Other Waldo Pepper is interesting evidence that she's the likely opponent, but you can also read it as saying that Romney outpolls every one of his opponents combined, while Bachmann loses badly to the her wing combined. They all have to get behind her after their preferred candidate drops out. That's hard to sustain and means even lower enthusiasm.

All this is based on there not being a bombshell discontinuity over the next year. Talking about it just before the default date is therefore risky. I don't believe there will be a default - every Republican leader except Cantor has stated that it is an insane thing to let happen - but if there is no one knows where the pieces will fall after the explosion.

Other than that, the election will be Obama vs. Romney, with Obama the winner. There is simply no enthusiasm for Romney as a candidate, while Obama is raising several times as much money as him, and AFAIK, a couple of times what all the Republican candidates are raising collectively. If he were consistently behind in every poll, I might think otherwise. But he is consistently ahead in almost every poll against specific names. (Single polls mean nothing. If the universe of polls don't say the same thing, feel free to disregard any outlier no matter how tempting it looks.)

The power of incumbancy, plus more money, plus the demographic factor that the Republicans have alienated several large groups. That's what any Republican has to overcome. I can't see Romney being the one to do so.

[Girl Next Door]

Once Perry gets into it, he'll quickly eclipse this guy.

And then beating Obama will be an easy task.

The guy who promoted secession is going to be president? I don't think so.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

The guy who promoted secession is going to be president? I don't think so.

Might promote an interesting debate we haven't heard in this country since the 60s.

The 1860s.

[hajario]

I'd handicap it the same way as most of the rest of you. Romney v. Obama with Obama winning barring any of a number of unlikely bombshell events.

[foolsguinea]

If "hair apparent" was all that was needed, Trump would have gotten the nod.Gold star for reading comprehension. ;)

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Oh joy, almost as big a RINO as McCain

Again why is John McCain a RINO?

[Kolga]

A Perry candidacy will be dogged from the get-go by clips of his pro-secession speeches.

A Bachmann candidacy will have legs only until the crazy fully blossoms (which won't take long), and may be hampered by the new information on her health.

A Romney candidacy will suffer from his "I supported universal health care in MA but not for the country" perceived flip-flop.

However, I don't see any more viable candidates in the pack. Pawlenty is trailing badly, Cain is...not well-spoken, Gingrich is a joke, Santorum's NAME is a joke...

I have to agree with a Romney v. Obama election.

[ElvisL1ves]

That's guaranteed. If he picks an idiotic woman as a running mate, he'll win two states. :DWhen do we get to hear the yapping about how he couldn't even win his own state? :D

[Exapno Mapcase]

Nate Silver latest parsing of the polls is interesting. Is Obama Against Romney a Toss-Up? (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/is-obama-against-romney-a-toss-up/)

Romney does much better on average against Obama than anyone else who is currently running. If you read the full article, you'll see that Obama's lead is actually smaller than those raw numbers appear. Even with those qualifications, the candidates like Bachmann and Perry run well behind him.

Silver's blog is a must for those who hate stories that play up one poll as meaningful. They aren't. Averages and trends are always far more meaningful.

It should be avoided by people who hate facts and rational, objective analysis. Wait, I meant it shouldn't be avoided, but it will be anyway.

[flickster]

Again why is John McCain a RINO?

Do you really need a cite for all the times he stuck a knife into the backs of conservatives?

[Frank]

Do you really need a cite for all the times he stuck a knife into the backs of conservatives?
I'm mildly bemused as to why then conservatives nominated him as the candidate of their party.

[Chronos]

Do you really need a cite for all the times he stuck a knife into the backs of conservatives? If you could find a cite for that, at most it would prove him a CINO. But when you're a major party's candidate for President, you're pretty much by definition what that party stands for, in more than just name.

[flickster]

If you could find a cite for that, at most it would prove him a CINO. But when you're a major party's candidate for President, you're pretty much by definition what that party stands for, in more than just name.

Which is exactly why a good portion of conservatives stayed home which resulted in the mess we have now

[flickster]

I'm mildly bemused as to why then conservatives nominated him as the candidate of their party.

The conservatives didn't. The old boy GOP network and the dem cross-over votes in the primaries took care of that

[tnetennba]

Which is exactly why a good portion of conservatives stayed home which resulted in the mess we have now

We were in that mess before the election.

[Little Nemo]

Which is exactly why a good portion of conservatives stayed home which resulted in the mess we have nowSo the message you drew from the voters picking Obama over McCain is that the voters want a more conservative candidate?

Looks like the GOP needs to get hit in the head a few more times with the old clue-stick.

[jtgain]

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/07/bachmann-continues-to-surge.html

She's beating Romney by scoring in the low 20s with lots o' candidates, but still beating him 44%-41% in a one-on-one match.

I don't have a cite, but Buchanan was polling those numbers before voters got to know him. No way that Bachmann has 44% of the GOP voters. Not even close.

So the message you drew from the voters picking Obama over McCain is that the voters want a more conservative candidate?

Looks like the GOP needs to get hit in the head a few more times with the old clue-stick.

When has the GOP nominated someone that was "too conservative" to get elected President? Goldwater in '64? Other than that, I'm drawing a blank as to what lesson needs learned. Reagan and Bush II were very conservative (at least as candidates) and that didn't seem to hurt their chances at all.

[Recovering Republican]

Money-making opportunity: http://www.intrade.com/?request_operation=main&request_type=action&checkHomePage=true

Rick Perry currently trading at 23.8. Get in quick for easy money.

More realistically, Rick Perry needs to start doing the things that being a candidate require - raising money for a start. You may have heard that Obama brought in 85 million last quarter. One more quarter like that and Perry has some major catching up to do. He's not, as far as I know, independently wealthy like Romney.


85 million a quarter isn't going to erase the fact that the man has made this country economically miserable for all of us.

Unless the GOP establishment gets its way and foists the Android from Kolob on us, then he will win.

[Recovering Republican]

So the message you drew from the voters picking Obama over McCain is that the voters want a more conservative candidate?

Looks like the GOP needs to get hit in the head a few more times with the old clue-stick.

No, what we need to do is stop trying to make your side like us.

That was the mistake with McCain. We listened to you guys who spent 8 years whinging, "Well, If Republicans were more like John McCain" or "Gee, I wish McCain had won instead of George W. Bush" and we fell for it and nominated McCain. (The fact no clearly conservative challenger was out there didn't help, either.)

The voters picked Obama over McCain because
1) The economy seemed kind of bad in November 2008 (although it seems like PARADISE compared to now)
2) The liberal media guilted a lot of stupid white people into saying "Well, we won't think you're racist if you vote for Obama".
3) People managed to hide just how inexperienced and left wing Obama actually was.

None of these factors will be in play in 2012. So the GOP might as well go for broke and nominate a conservative they can be excited about.

[Recovering Republican]

I'm mildly bemused as to why then conservatives nominated him as the candidate of their party.

A couple of reasons.

1) They bought into the LIE that maybe liberals might support a GOP candidate who was more moderate. They didn't, and a lot of conservatives stayed home.

2) Really, there was no clear conservative alternative to McCain. The Android from Kolob was clearly a phony. Huckabee was socially conservative but he was a big-spending, nanny state liberal on economic policies. Fred Thompson said all the right things, but he wasn't running a serious campaign. (I suspect today that Thompson was just out there as a stalking horse for his good buddy McCain.)

3) The unfortunate reality of the nominating process is that we give too many votes in it to blue states that we are never going to carry or even waste time in. Take a look at the Super Tuesday States - New York, California, Illinois. There aren't enough Republicans in those states to really make a difference, but there are just enough moderates to tip the nominees, especially if you don't allocate the delegates proportionately.

[tnetennba]

1) The economy seemed kind of bad in November 2008 (although it seems like PARADISE compared to now)
2) The liberal media guilted a lot of stupid white people into saying "Well, we won't think you're racist if you vote for Obama".
3) People managed to hide just how inexperienced and left wing Obama actually was.

None of these are reality-based opinions.

And of course, none are really about Romney. Will all understand by now your fictional version of the economic boon of late 2008 and the quick, single handed destruction of the US by Obama. At this point you can just understand that although we might reject these fictions, we DO know that YOU believe them. You don't nee to keep repeating it in every thread.

[Recovering Republican]

A Perry candidacy will be dogged from the get-go by clips of his pro-secession speeches. .

You mean the ONE speech where he actually says secession would be a bad idea, but he understands why people are angry?


.
A Bachmann candidacy will have legs only until the crazy fully blossoms (which won't take long), and may be hampered by the new information on her health..

I think Bachmann is the Howard Dean of this cycle. She excites the idealogues, but they'll settle for someone more mainstream.


A Romney candidacy will suffer from his "I supported universal health care in MA but not for the country" perceived flip-flop..

Romney has a much bigger problem in that he's a Mormon. But more on that later.


However, I don't see any more viable candidates in the pack. Pawlenty is trailing badly, Cain is...not well-spoken, Gingrich is a joke, Santorum's NAME is a joke....

At the end of the say, you guys still have Mr. 9.2% as your candidate, though.


.
I have to agree with a Romney v. Obama election.

Actually, Romney is the one guy the GOP could nominate who would be a sure fire loser.

Here's an interesting tidbit I found wandering hither and yon...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gallup-22-say-they-wouldnt-vote-mormon_574967.html

Gallup's latest poll of American adults asks: "Between now and the 2012 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates -- their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a Mormon, would you vote for that person?"

The results: 76 percent of Americans say they would vote for a well-qualified Mormon, while 22 percent say they would not. The bias is more pronounced among Democrats: 27 percent say they wouldn't vote for a Mormon, while 18 percent of Republicans and 19 percent of independents say the same.

Gallup also notes the bias against Mormons is worse than the bias against ethnic and other religious minorities: "At 22%, Americans' resistance to electing a Mormon president, even one nominated by their own party, is exceeded only by their opposition to electing someone who is either gay or lesbian (32%) or an atheist (49%). By contrast, less than half as many, 10%, say they would not vote for a Hispanic, and fewer than 10% would not vote for a nominee who is Jewish, Baptist, Catholic, female, or black."


Now consider that. 18% of REPUBLICANS say they will not vote for a Mormon. While some might consider that "bigotry", I attribute it not enough people realize what crazy stuff Mormons actually believe or that number would go up. I also suspect the real number is higher, because there are those who wouldn't want the pollster to think they are prejudiced or something.

What I've noticed is that while the MSM is attacking every possible aspect of Bachmann and Palin (who isn't even running) and Perry (get off the fence, already!) they are largely leaving Romney alone.

Which just tells me they are hoping he gets the nomination, and then well get a bunch of stories telling us about Magic Underwear, dark skin being a curse from God, the Planet Kolob, and all the other kookie stuff Joseph Smith was making up.

[ElvisL1ves]

You mean the ONE speech where he actually says secession would be a bad idea, but he understands why people are angry? IOW the speech where he mentions it as a realistic possibility. Come on now. :dubious:

I think Bachmann is the Howard Dean of this cycle. She excites the idealogues, but they'll settle for someone more mainstream. Guess what? Dean was and is in the mainstream of the DP and the US. Bachmann is firmly in what now passes for the mainstream of the GOP.

Romney has a much bigger problem in that he's a Mormon. But more on that later. The flipflopping/pandering problem, the empty-suit problem, and the class-warfare problem have always mattered far more, and will continue to do so.

[Recovering Republican]

IOW the speech where he mentions it as a realistic possibility. Come on now. :dubious:

It's always a realistic possibility. We are the United States. That implies that someone might want to leave the Union. But Perry specifically stated that despite the abuses from Washington, that would be a bad idea.



Guess what? Dean was and is in the mainstream of the DP and the US. Bachmann is firmly in what now passes for the mainstream of the GOP.

Depressing isn't it?



The flipflopping/pandering problem, the empty-suit problem, and the class-warfare problem have always mattered far more, and will continue to do so.

I see Romney as a candidate with a lot of problems, but for me, the Mormonism is the deal killer. I was able to hold my nose and vote for Dole (Tax Collector for the welfare state) and McCain (Never saw a knife he didn't think would look good in someone's back). So, yeah, if he didn't belong to THAT religion, I could probably hold my nose and vote for him.

Of course, as a side note, when I've been enthusiastic about a candidate, he wins, when I'm holding my nose, he loses.

The only one I see myself voting for enthusiastically for this time is Perry.

[Frank]

It's always a realistic possibility. We are the United States. That implies that someone might want to leave the Union.
This hasn't been a realistic possibility for 146 years.

[Recovering Republican]

This hasn't been a realistic possibility for 146 years.

Except that what if a state votes to leave the union? Are we going to invade them to keep them in? Frankly, I'd be happy if certain states left the union. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

The ironic thing about the Civil War was that the South was in the right legally. They had a right to leave the union if that's what their people wanted them to do. Of course, they did it for the wrong reasons, and that was probably good enough to let Lincoln get away with making war on them.

[Frank]

Except that what if a state votes to leave the union? Are we going to invade them to keep them in?
:rolleyes:

[ElvisL1ves]

I'd go with :D

[Fear Itself]

Except that what if a state votes to leave the union? Are we going to invade them to keep them in? Why would we have to invade them, when we can crush them economically, and simply wait for them to beg to be let back in? Border and coastal states might last a bit longer, but landlocked states like Kansas could easily be blockaded and simply starve them out.

[BigT]

Except that what if a state votes to leave the union? Are we going to invade them to keep them in?

That's what we did last time. And, yet again, they'd be seceding over something the rest of the world thinks is stupid and wrong, so, once again, we'd win.

Yes, I know Arkansas seceded. But that was because of those flatlanders down in South Arkansas. We hillfolk didn't want or need slaves.

[foolsguinea]

The flipflopping/pandering problem, the empty-suit problem, and the class-warfare problem have always mattered far more, and will continue to do so.What class-warfare problem does Mitt have?Yes, I know Arkansas seceded. But that was because of those flatlanders down in South Arkansas. We hillfolk didn't want or need slaves.:dubious: For some values of hilllfolk I suppose. I'm from the Missouri side of the Ozarks, & there are some number of good ol' boys who seem to think they are Southern Rebs. Then again, I'm from the western edge, so maybe not real hillbillies.

[jtgain]

The ironic thing about the Civil War was that the South was in the right legally. They had a right to leave the union if that's what their people wanted them to do.

Cite? That was debated for years with no really clear answer. I'm not sure how you can make such an unqualified assertion. The case of Grant v. Lee, 1 U.S.CivWar. 1 (Appx. 1865) put that to rest.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Neither side pretends that their candidate will draw many voters from the other side's base. What they do is try to pick a candidate who will outdraw the other in the pool of "independents" who haven't already made their minds up a year-and-a-half before the election. I'm putting "independents" in quotes because they are anything but. Every survey shows that the majority are uncaring, ignorant, or apolitical, who get swayed at the last minute. Obviously, people online who declare themselves independents will object to this characterization, but by definition if they are actually posting about elections and politics they are not representative of the whole.

This group does tend to care very much about not supporting the extremes. They look to candidates who appear to be less extreme than the others. That's why American presidential candidates always wind up running to the middle. They try to less extreme the opposition. It's invariably successful. The middle always decides presidential elections.

Both McCain and Obama seemed to be less extreme than most of the others running in their parties. The problem that McCain faced was that he wasn't getting much traction in the middle, so he took a gamble on trying to get his base more fired up. Polls showed a short uptick after he picked Palin and then a long fall. Independents wound up going heavily for Obama.

No objective look at Obama's presidency can call someone who's endured two years of his base screaming at him in disappointed fury an extremist, even though the Republicans will try to paint him as such. The only question is whether the Republicans will pick the right-of-center candidate who might appeal to the disaffected or a far-right-of-center candidate who will fire up the base. Since the base is at best 30% of the electorate and probably a lot lower, that makes the battle for the nomination interesting. The base may be a majority of primary voters, though probably not in the larger, more urbanized states.

But if the right-of-center candidate has a poor chance against an incumbent president, the base candidate has none. Again, this has nothing to do with appealing to the liberals. It's all about appealing to the independents. And they won't go to an extremist. (For a historic example, look at how fast and far the numbers for Ross Perot dropped after he started looking like a nutty extremist in 1992.)

[ElvisL1ves]

What class-warfare problem does Mitt have?Two main things:

- He has used his inherited wealth only to increase it, via buying companies, milking them, laying people off who needed those jobs, then walking away and letting them die rather than rebuilding them. His claim to business acumen is not based on job creation, but the opposite.

- He has come out in opposition to universal health care nationally, thereby supporting Big Insurance and Big Health instead of the people.

A wealthy person who has not recognized and followed noblesse oblige is always susceptible to that problem in public life, but he's done worse than that, and has no pro-people accomplishments he can point to other than the Mass health care program he now does not support (which is the heart of his flipfloppery, of course). Kennedys and Rockefellers, even Bloomberg, could have taught him something about that if he'd been interested in hearing it.

Not that either prevents GOP partisans from the usual "No, the DEMS are the real class warriors, for even claiming that's what we're doing! Just like the real bigots are people who decry bigotry!" Same tactic.

[gonzomax]

Strange how quiet he has been lately. There has been a huge todo over the debt ceiling and he has been in the Mittless protection Agency. Not a peep. I give him credit. he understands the Repubs are nuts and does not want to be part of exploding the economy for political reasons.

[gonzomax]

He sat by and let Gov, Goodhair and Blechmann get momentum. That may not have been a wise move. It was important enough to get Plawenty to quit. Yet Romney hid like he did during the debt ceiling debate.

[Little Nemo]

Perry's the first candidate that I think has a serious chance to take the nomination from Romney. He's somebody the Republican establishment can support.

His biggest liability will be the Bush factor. Being Bush's successor in the Texas governorship will make it easy to portray him as trying to be Bush's successor in the White House. And Bush still has a lot of negatives attached to his memory. Obama will love it if he can run against another Bush surrogate.

[gonzomax]

This straw poll was important enough to eliminate Plawenty, yet Romney still goes on after a worse showing.
Cain claimed he did well, because he was expected to do poorly and he reached that level, therefore his campaign was a success.
Politics can cause weird and tortured logic.

[Little Nemo]

This straw poll was important enough to eliminate Plawenty, yet Romney still goes on after a worse showing.Romney's claim is based on the fact that he wasn't officially in the straw poll. He's saying he did well considering he was only getting write-in votes.

[Martin Hyde]

The entire Iowa caucuses are highly suspect in any case, there have been countless articles in the past weeks showing that there actually isn't a particularly predictive value to the outcome of the Iowa caucuses. It's stupid to ignore the early primaries entirely and pull a Giuliani (do nothing until Florida), but it's not really a major issue to more or less ignore Iowa if you keep national attention and at least do a bit of work there.

Romney has very little organization in Iowa because his campaign has chosen not to focus on Iowa; however he has made appearances at the Iowa State Fair and things of that nature. He also has the benefit of being the early front runner so he is keeping his name in the air without having to expend a huge amount of energy in Iowa. Basically I think he's doing the right thing in regards to Iowa.

If you compare it to Giuliani who was never the front runner, didn't even make any real attempt to get any national attention prior to the big primary in Florida, and whose campaign quickly ended I would say Romney's is a good example of how to focus on the important primaries without destroying your candidacy.

Bush sort of did the same thing, he lost some early primaries to McCain but his organization and campaigning in South Carolina was simply overwhelming and McCain's campaign went off the tracks there, Bush's organization in the Super Tuesday states was also impossible for McCain to seriously challenge. Romney is following a good strategy of focusing on what actually wins the nomination but still keeping visibility. As the front runner I think he essentially has the luxury of not over-exerting himself in Iowa or New Hampshire. If you look historically both of those states have had weird outcomes in the past that have not ultimately been predictive. South Carolina on the other hand, every GOP nominee at least since Reagan has won South Carolina, you cannot say the same about Iowa/New Hampshire. Mathematically SC is also much more important in terms of delegate count as well.

In reality that's exactly what South Carolina is designed to do; the party's preferred candidate is given massive support in South Carolina and it makes the outcome of the nomination less influenced by New Hampshire (a somewhat strange state with New England Republicans who will often have very different positions than the national party) and Iowa, by giving a powerful front runner the ability to overcome a fringe upstart candidate since SC has more delegates than Iowa and New Hampshire combined.

If you look at the situation in Iowa Romney came in third but one of the people in front of him is a native Iowan and the other was Ron Paul, whose Presidential candidacy is a joke even though he may actually win a random primary or caucus somewhere along the way.

Perry is the only serious challenger, and he is probably who Romney is most concerned about right now. If Perry is strong over the next few months he could take the "frontrunner" crown from Romney and it could be Romney who ends up needing to fight for a win in South Carolina to re-establish himself.

[Martin Hyde]

A quick look at the Iowa Caucuses on who won and who ended up being nominated:

1980: George H.W. Bush - Reagan won nom
1988: Bob Dole - George H.W. won nom (Pat Robertson won the straw poll, showing its lack of grounding in anything meaningful)
1996: Bob Dole - Dole won nom
2000: Bush - Bush won nom
2008: Huckabee - McCain won nom

So in the last 5 competitive Republican nomination cycles the ultimate winner has only won Iowa twice.

[gonzomax]

I don't think Romney can get crazy enough to match the rest. The baggers will eat him alive and declare him a Liberal. Compared to them, he may be.

[gonzomax]

In 17 years of politics, Romney's record is 5 w 18 losses. ,so I read today. that does not cause enthusiasm or confidence.

[Lantern]

Perry is the only serious challenger, and he is probably who Romney is most concerned about right now. If Perry is strong over the next few months he could take the "frontrunner" crown from Romney and it could be Romney who ends up needing to fight for a win in South Carolina to re-establish himself.
I think Perry has already become the front-runner in the two weeks since you wrote this. The last CNN poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/wh12rep.htm)is eye-popping; 27% for Perry versus 14% for Romney. Further down you have 19% for Palin and Bachman who will probably pick Perry over Romney. The 9% for Giuliani will probably pick Romney but it's hard to see him getting too many votes from the rest. Perry will probably win Iowa easily and that will give him huge momentum for South Carolina where I am guessing he polls well among primary voters.

[pantom]

I've only been back for a wee little bit, but I will tell you one thing: Recovering Republican is the real deal. I don't know why he puts recovering in front. If he prefers Perry, I guarantee you so does most of the rest of the Republican primary voters. When they're among themselves, Perry is it. Bachmann they're sympathetic to, but the one that really makes their day is Perry.
Note carefully his opinions of Mccain and Dole, and even more revealingly, his opinion on the states' right to secede at will. That marks him as the mainstream of the Republican Party.
The mainstream: not only do they not have a problem with Perry's secession speech, it's considered a minimum qualification. As is his little remark about Bernanke (a Republican who was nominated by a Republican, remember) being treasonous.
Mccain and Dole would have been mainstream before Reagan. Those days are long, long gone.

Which means: Romney has as much chance of being the nominee as George Soros.

[pravnik]

Perry may not be a lock; a lot of folks outside Texas haven't forgotten that he used to be a Democrat, voted for Clinton's tax increases, was Al Gore's campaign manager, etc. and switched teams when it became clear that the wind here was blowing from blue over to red. Some Republicans think he's the real deal, but I understand a lot of the old guard and their contributors semi-privately consider him a candy-assed opportunist who'll flip whenever it's politically expedient to do so. If it is Perry, though, who's the running mate? Palin or Bachmann would make some of the far right faint with delight, but Perry's got them already - he needs the middle.

[pantom]

Perry may not be a lock; a lot of folks outside Texas haven't forgotten that he used to be a Democrat, voted for Clinton's tax increases, was Al Gore's campaign manager, etc. and switched teams when it became clear that the wind here was blowing from blue over to red. Some Republicans think he's the real deal, but I understand a lot of the old guard and their contributors semi-privately consider him a candy-assed opportunist who'll flip whenever it's politically expedient to do so. If it is Perry, though, who's the running mate? Palin or Bachmann would make some of the far right faint with delight, but Perry's got them already - he needs the middle.

Perry switched in 1989. He was Al Gore's manager in Texas in the 1988 election, not 2000. It's not even remotely relevant.
Voted for Clinton's tax increases? Huh? When did he serve in Congress?

[Frank]

The 9% for Giuliani ...
This is precisely why I'm not going to pay one bit of attention to polls for now. Maybe in January I'll start idly glancing at them.

[Exapno Mapcase]

This is precisely why I'm not going to pay one bit of attention to polls for now. Maybe in January I'll start idly glancing at them.

Yeah. We've been saying for months that the conservative wing was going to coalesce around one candidate. The only question was who that was going to be. And Perry has been mentioned as a major possibility since before he declared.

So what has changed? There's a rush of enthusiasm because Perry is neither Bachmann nor Palin, but nobody outside of their most fervent supporters thought they were remotely electable.

Perry has yet to show that he is a national candidate, that he can put together a good campaign team, that he can get the backing of the large donors outside Texas, or that he can win a primary outside of the conservative states that Romney has already written off. None of the polls right now take any of that into account.

Saying Romney was going to be the candidate was betting against the polls' lack of enthusiasm for him from the beginning. Until reality changes, there's no reason to change the prediction.

[pravnik]

Perry switched in 1989. He was Al Gore's manager in Texas in the 1988 election, not 2000. It's not even remotely relevant.
Voted for Clinton's tax increases? Huh? When did he serve in Congress?:smack: Sorry, wrong Bill. Not Bill Clinton, Bill Clements, former Texas Governor. In 1987 Rick Perry, then a Democrat, voted in favor of Governor Clements' $5.7 billion tax increase, the largest increase ever proposed in the state. I'm not exactly privy to those circles (not even remotely privy, to be honest), but the tax increases while a Democrat and past political backing of Al Gore may have some of the old schoolers clicking their tongues, according to the entirely unreliable source of a Republican friend I ate lunch with yesterday. Seriously, it's the first I've heard that Perry has anything less than the undying support of the right, but it makes some sense and seems relevant so I thought I'd pass it along for the sake of conversation.

[Happy Lendervedder]

:smack: Sorry, wrong Bill. Not Bill Clinton, Bill Clements, former Texas Governor. In 1987 Rick Perry, then a Democrat, voted in favor of Governor Clements' $5.7 billion tax increase, the largest increase ever proposed in the state. I'm not exactly privy to those circles (not even remotely privy, to be honest), but the tax increases while a Democrat and past political backing of Al Gore may have some of the old schoolers clicking their tongues, according to the entirely unreliable source of a Republican friend I ate lunch with yesterday. Seriously, it's the first I've heard that Perry has anything less than the undying support of the right, but it makes some sense and seems relevant so I thought I'd pass it along for the sake of conversation.

I actually think this would give him more cred in the conservative circles, a la Reagan being a former Dem/union prez/etc. He can say "Been there, done that, and it sucks balls. The only way forward is to [insert conservative talking point here]."

[The_Raven]

Apparently Romney has gone McCain '08, trying to suck up to the Tea Party... Problem is, they aren't having it.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0831/Mitt-Romney-s-tough-call-Court-the-tea-party-to-counter-Perry-surge

Freedomworks is planning to protest Romney's inclusion in an appearance in a Tea Party sponsored event in Concord, NH

With South Carolina coming up, Romney will have to embrace the derp, before he gets herped.

[gonzomax]

Perry will have to be gagged to make it. He keeps saying Palinesque things that are nutty. Turn off your brain and follow him blindly. Then he has to backtrack,. You would have to be a deadhead repub to follow him. He is a terrible candidate.

[Lantern]

What Perry did 20+ years ago will have minimal impact on his chances. It is a well-known fact that many Southern conservatives were Democrats for historical reasons and then switched to the Republicans.

Perry is the most conservative candidate who could plausibly become president. He has serious governing experience unlike Bachmann and Palin. Though the idea of a "Texas miracle" under Perry is mostly myth, it will be highly persuasive to GOP primary voters. By contrast Bachmann and Palin will struggle to point to a single major achievement in government even from a conservative perspective.

Perry's problems include crony capitalism in Texas and the extremism of his views but they won't hurt much in the primary. Investigative stories on his Texas record will be dismissed by conservatives as "lamestream media" bias. His comments on Bernanke were beyond the pale but they will only help persuade conservatives that he is one of them.

[gonzomax]

The eat each other debate season is coming up. This is when the Repubs savage each other on stage due to ruthless ambition and ego. They will chop each other apart for our viewing pleasure. I have plenty of popcorn on hand. It will be great TV.
Every stupid think Perry has done or said will be dredged up. Palin can never explain away her quitting . Romney will have to fight off a liberal label and a serious religious problem. Bachmann will have to act like she isn't nuts. that will be very hard to do.
Obama is not having a savage season to contend with. He can be a spectator like the rest of us.

[Chronos]

By contrast Bachmann and Palin will struggle to point to a single major achievement in government even from a conservative perspective.No, don't you see, that just proves their point! Government is evil, incompetent, and corrupt, as proven by their complete lack of achievements in government. If they'd only tried to make those achievements privately, they'd have succeeded. So we must elect them to ensure that government continues to do nothing!

[gonzomax]

It seems Romney is fighting against Obama instead of the other Republicans. I am not sure that strategy will serve him because the others are getting all the attention. If he maintains that during the debates, I think he will lose more ground. He has to go after Perry and Bachmann.

[ElvisL1ves]

That's what he tried in 2008. Maybe if he tries it even harder this time ...

The guy has a chance if he drops the bagger-pandering and markets himself to the sane segment of the party. He'd have it all to himself, while the bagger candidates split that vote. But he doesn't dare try to rebrand himself yet again, and he probably has already done that too many times already.

[Merijeek]

That's what he tried in 2008. Maybe if he tries it even harder this time ...

The guy has a chance if he drops the bagger-pandering and markets himself to the sane segment of the party. He'd have it all to himself, while the bagger candidates split that vote. But he doesn't dare try to rebrand himself yet again, and he probably has already done that too many times already.

Pretty sure he gave up on that strategy when he started deep throating Minty Jim.

-Joe

[gonzomax]

Romney is fading. He lost momentum to another Texas governor. Perry is a disaster but he galvanizes the right. He will kill innocent people for the tea baggers amusement. He will also toss sick people into the street . It is a cold and ugly world that he promises, but that is where the right is heading.

[Lago Ys-Transform]

I don't think that Perry has any chance personally. He's doubling down on the 'Social Security is a Ponzi scheme' rhetoric. That's not even popular among his own base.

My prediction is that Perry sinks Bachmann and pushes her out of the race by being a better alternative; however he soon torpedoes himself by pushing extremist positions like that one. Romney easily coasts by on the GOP debates with Perry marginalized and no one else within even striking distance.

[gonzomax]

These guys are bad enough that it is possible the Repubs will have to bring in someone else. That does not mean Palin.

[PhillyGuy]

These guys are bad enough that it is possible the Repubs will have to bring in someone else.

If there is a real party establishment that can override or force the primaries and caucuses, this would work.

Who are you thinking that "the Repubs" could bring in, and how would they do it?

[Girl Next Door]

I think Huntsman should run as an independent.

[gonzomax]

If there is a real party establishment that can override or force the primaries and caucuses, this would work.

Who are you thinking that "the Repubs" could bring in, and how would they do it?

Christie would be a solution. A very good one.

[Girl Next Door]

Christie would be a solution. A very good one.

He could use Taft's old bathtub! :p

[gonzomax]

He could use Taft's old bathtub! :p

They are going to lap band him and diet the shit out of him before they trust him to run. It is not acceptable to be overweight in American politics any more. We are a petty lot who would criticize him endlessly. We are the fattest nation on earth ,yet no way a fat man can run.

[Happy Lendervedder]

They are going to lap band him and diet the shit out of him before they trust him to run. It is not acceptable to be overweight in American politics any more. We are a petty lot who would criticize him endlessly. We are the fattest nation on earth ,yet no way a fat man can run.

Well, in his defense, he's made it to the top of the political heap in New Jersey-- the 11th most populous, 17th healthiest, and eighth leanest state. (http://www.forbes.com/2010/12/06/healthiest-unhealthiest-states-lifestyle-health-uhc-table.html) So it's not that unacceptable in American politics.

But I do agree that his girth would be much more scrutinized in a national election.

[waterj2]

Doesn't most of Christie's appeal lie in Youtube videos of him haranguing random constituents? I don't know how that translates into winning over independents.

Really, Romney seems to be the only one who's likely to make it through the whole grueling campaign without shooting himself in the foot in a major way. Everyone else seems to decline in popularity the more they campaign. Or the ones that just don't really have any popularity to begin with. Romney's been a top contender the whole race so far, while clowns like Donald Trump and Herman Cain have brief surges of being the other contender for a little while, only to disappear. I'm not a fan of Romney by any means, but the Republicans don't have anyone better.

[Lago Ys-Transform]

We are the fattest nation on earth ,yet no way a fat man can run.

Americans got passed by Australians a couple of years ago. Yeah, I'm just as upset as you are. WTF America we're falling behind on all of our critical categories! We must close the fat gap!


But anyway, the problem with electoral politics (esp. in America) is that in order to run for president... you have to run for president. Shocking, I know, but the problem is that the person who would make the best person for President isn't necessarily the best candidate. Not only that but there is a bunch of stupid bullshit you have to put up with on the road to the White House like people analyzing what your wife is wearing or clucking about what kids you adopted. I'd personally rather have my nut hairs pulled out one-by-one by my ex- than have to talk to whatever jerk is representing the so-called fifth estate about my opinion on the flag amendment or my personal relationship with Jesus or whatever the fuck. And I don't think I'm alone.

[gonzomax]

Americans got passed by Australians a couple of years ago. Yeah, I'm just as upset as you are. WTF America we're falling behind on all of our critical categories! We must close the fat gap!


But anyway, the problem with electoral politics (esp. in America) is that in order to run for president... you have to run for president. Shocking, I know, but the problem is that the person who would make the best person for President isn't necessarily the best candidate. Not only that but there is a bunch of stupid bullshit you have to put up with on the road to the White House like people analyzing what your wife is wearing or clucking about what kids you adopted. I'd personally rather have my nut hairs pulled out one-by-one by my ex- than have to talk to whatever jerk is representing the so-called fifth estate about my opinion on the flag amendment or my personal relationship with Jesus or whatever the fuck. And I don't think I'm alone.

Not quite that simple. You can watch the announced candidates implode and then step into the gap. The election season has barely started and Bachmann has shown she is a joke, when not long ago ,she was front runner. Perry is saying lots of stupid things and his dumb cup will soon run over. Eventually he will become a joke. Paul can not win. Palin can not win. Romney is not far right enough to capture the party.The baggers can not get on board.
If you can not get your party in back of you, how can you run for president? The Big money people require someone pretty obedient. They have lots of money to spend to get a Republican employee into office. But he has to have a good chance. They probably want Romney, but the party might fracture.
I am not sure about Huntsman. He seems to be pretty smart, so he may not follow orders very well. Maybe they can get Jeb into the race. But he will have to run as being better than his brother and different than him. Good luck with that,

[BrainGlutton]

Americans got passed by Australians a couple of years ago.

!!! What do they eat that's so fattening?!

[gonzomax]

!!! What do they eat that's so fattening?!

Fosters and Piss.

[Belowjob2.0]

I can't see Jeb getting in this one. He's gotta be waiting for 2016. Huntsman too, for that matter.

Incidentally, it's the Republicans who need a Sister Souljah moment. Someone has to have the balls to say, "No more pandering to plutocrats."

Ultimately, it's cheap and easy to take a stand against the harmless excesses of a few self styled black radicals. Much harder to speak truth to real power. What's hilarious is that so many people think the CBC are villains, and not the wealthy interests who routinely rape American in the ass.

[The Tooth]

!!! What do they eat that's so fattening?!

Americans. That's why they have to pass them.

[gonzomax]

Christie is supposed to be thinking about jumping into the race. He still has a little more time because the Repubs are blowing their feet off.. Romney is beginning to look like the last man standing, but he has been lamed too.
Romney is a hard sell.He went for an Obama type health care in Mass. He can not explain it away. The right has pounded Obamacare night and day since it was passed. It was popular, but the pounding has made it much less so. So how does Romney get on that bandwagon now?
He will have to lie. I have to admit i get a weird kick out of self proclaimed godly people who have no problem lying in front of the nation. That is what he will have to do.
How many super christians will have to lie and say they have no problem with a Mormon as the head of their party? The fun is about to begin.

[gonzomax]

It will be Christie , but he is a national unknown. He may be as orally accident prone as the rest are. Then what? If Romney is the best, the Repub lose.

[gonzomax]

Christie claims he is not interested, but the NJ governor is going to be in 3 or 4 states this week. Stretching the truth a bit? The Repubs are feeling desperate.

[jsgoddess]

Christie may have some of the same problems as Romney and Perry when it comes to having the conservative bona fides necessary:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/is-christie-the-anti-perry-or-the-anti-romney/

[gonzomax]

The Cain straw vote can be seen as a refutiation of Romney. It is like saying, anybody but the Mitt. Because they all know Cain can not get nominated.

[ElvisL1ves]

Meh. The straw voters were just hoping to score some free pizza.

[Lantern]

Romney versus Christie will be an interesting battle.

Romney is more disciplined, has a more impressive resume and a big head start when it comes to raising money and organizing a campaign. OTOH he is widely perceived to be a flip-flopper and lacks the popular touch.

Christie is fresh and charismatic and something of a darling in the conservative media. OTOH he is rather late and may struggle to get his camapaign up and running for the crucial ground game in the early states.

The basic problem for Christie is that he will be competing in the smaller ideological space against a tough competitor. The real votes are in the Perry/Cain/Gingrich/Bachmann space but it has struggled to produce a credible candidate. Perry looked like the real deal but he has obviously struggled since his woeful debate performances.

My hunch is Perry will recover because his problems are basically about messaging. He had done a terrible job explaining himself on the few issues like immigration where he departed from conservative orthodoxy. However the reality is that he has a conservative record and agenda and if he can communicate it better he will regain the support of the GOP base.

[gonzomax]

Romney does not appeal to the Christian Conservatives. Many will not support a Mormon ,no matter what. The Repubs are running against Obamacare, yet Romney's care was a blueprint for Obama. Romney is an elitist spoiled rich kid. The Repubs like to vote for a guy they can picture having a beer with. That is not Mitt. He is a semi-liberal east coaster.
That is why his campaign is mired in the mud. They don't want him. But they may have to default to him because the other candidates are horribly flawed.
I wonder how enthusiastically the Repubs would help Mitty?

[Frank]

Romney versus Christie will be an interesting battle.
I agree. It is definitely Romney's niche that Christie would be trying to take over.

What I find most interesting is that at this late date in the announcement/straw polling/fund raising/etc. cycle, there are still Republicans that are so unhappy with their candidates that they are seriously thinking it's not that late after all.

[gonzomax]

Palin is watching the party implode. But she is unqualified for the run. That does not mean she will not do it.
Fat people have trouble running for office. Christie will face that, along with his not being an ultra conservative.
After a series of debates, nothing is settled.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

I predict a deadlock at the convention, taking some time to resolve.

There simply doesn't seem to be a genuine, electable frontrunner for the Republicans.

[gonzomax]

I predict a deadlock at the convention, taking some time to resolve.

There simply doesn't seem to be a genuine, electable frontrunner for the Republicans.

The primaries are setup to avoid a convention confrontation. The front runner will have enough votes to carry the nomination.
It was a lot more fun when the conventions were a battlefield. Now they are coronations.

[The wind of my soul]

Romney does not appeal to the Christian Conservatives. Many will not support a Mormon ,no matter what. The Repubs are running against Obamacare, yet Romney's care was a blueprint for Obama. Romney is an elitist spoiled rich kid. The Repubs like to vote for a guy they can picture having a beer with. That is not Mitt. He is a semi-liberal east coaster.
That is why his campaign is mired in the mud. They don't want him. But they may have to default to him because the other candidates are horribly flawed.
I wonder how enthusiastically the Repubs would help Mitty?

I have not met a single Republican who is more disgusted with Mormonism than they are with Obama. If he wins the primaries, I don't think his religion will hurt him at all.

I'll concede that in the primaries, being Mormon will likely hurt Romney. However, there are so many Christian conservatives to vote for that I predict the votes will get split five ways (Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, and Santorum), so even in the primaries his religion won't hurt him much unless at least two of those five drop out of the race.

[Mr Smashy]

I have not met a single Republican who is more disgusted with Mormonism than they are with Obama. If he wins the primaries, I don't think his religion will hurt him at all.



This is exactly right - the election isn't about the GOP candidate, it's about who is the safest person, with the best chance of defeating President Hopey McDowngrade. That's what the riled up right wants to do more than anything.

[Gyrate]

Meh. The straw voters were just hoping to score some free pizza.If Cain really wanted to get out the vote for himself, the "free pizza" move would definitely work in America. College students would flock to the polls.

Christie has done everything but put up a big neon sign saying "I'M NOT RUNNING". I'm going to guess that he's not running this time around.

[Chronos]

McDowngrade isn't President yet. In fact, she's doing rather poorly in the polls.

[Fear Itself]

Christie has done everything but put up a big neon sign saying "I'M NOT RUNNING". Reports: N.J. Governor Chris Christie will not seek presidency (http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/10/reports-governor-chris-christie-will-not-seek-presidency/u4uxO0ikYncdalMAsF1wlO/index.html)

[AbloyProtec]

It will be Christie , but he is a national unknown. He may be as orally accident prone as the rest are. Then what? If Romney is the best, the Repub lose.

Quite the prediction.

[Voyager]

This is exactly right - the election isn't about the GOP candidate, it's about who is the safest person, with the best chance of defeating President Hopey McDowngrade. That's what the riled up right wants to do more than anything.
Sure. That must be why so many Republicans are backing unelectable candidates like Bachmann, Paul and Cain. Romney is clearly the most electable of the set, and would govern from the center. That would drive the radicals nuts. It is not like the Tea Party would vote for Obama, but stay home and not donate, sure. You are ascribing a level of rationality to the Republican base which is not in evidence.

[The wind of my soul]

Sure. That must be why so many Republicans are backing unelectable candidates like Bachmann, Paul and Cain. Romney is clearly the most electable of the set, and would govern from the center. That would drive the radicals nuts. It is not like the Tea Party would vote for Obama, but stay home and not donate, sure. You are ascribing a level of rationality to the Republican base which is not in evidence.

I feel like you're missing the point. Republicans DO NOT like Obama. They dislike him enough to vote for whomever's running against him. You want to point out that Republicans are backing unelectable candidates, then let's point out that more Republicans are backing Mitt Romney than any other candidate. The candidates who get people excited are Bachmann, Paul, and Cain. Romney is not the favorite, most exciting of all the candidates, but he is viewed as the most electable, and THAT is why he has so much popular support right now -- because Republicans dislike Obama enough to strategize how to get him out of office. Unless you have an alternative theory as to why Romney is leading in the polls ...

[PhillyGuy]

I predict a deadlock at the convention, taking some time to resolve.
A dangerous prediction. As you may know, this hasn't happened since, I think, 1924. And that was the Democrats. The tradition is now very strong that the candidate with the most delegates gets nominated by acclamation. Also, with only two plausible candidates, Romney and Perry, it really is unlikely to last very long.

There simply doesn't seem to be a genuine, electable frontrunner for the Republicans.
Isn't that what they said when the GOP nominated an actor?

The election will be decided on the basis of which party gets the blame for the economy, not the identity of the candidate. Any current or former governor will do (except maybe for Palin, who really is unpopular).

[Voyager]

I feel like you're missing the point. Republicans DO NOT like Obama. They dislike him enough to vote for whomever's running against him. You want to point out that Republicans are backing unelectable candidates, then let's point out that more Republicans are backing Mitt Romney than any other candidate. The candidates who get people excited are Bachmann, Paul, and Cain. Romney is not the favorite, most exciting of all the candidates, but he is viewed as the most electable, and THAT is why he has so much popular support right now -- because Republicans dislike Obama enough to strategize how to get him out of office. Unless you have an alternative theory as to why Romney is leading in the polls ...

Then why are Dems concerned about the lack of thrill for Obama now? Same reason.
It is all about turnout and donations. Some who don't consider him to be a Christian might vote for the Libertarian candidate, or might decide that it is raining and not worth getting wet to vote. They won't turn out to do electioneering. In 1992, when I was dumb and Republican, I voted for some third party candidate rather than Bush, because I was fed up with him (not because of taxes) and because I never would vote for a Democrat. (Bush the younger cured me of that bias.)

McCain would have lost a lot of the people on the right if it weren't for Palin, though she lost more moderates than she gained right wingers. Romney would have the same problem. It is not enough to get a plurality of Republicans, you need to bind them together to allow you to go for the center without losing too many.

[AbloyProtec]

Then why are Dems concerned about the lack of thrill for Obama now? Same reason.
It is all about turnout and donations. Some who don't consider him to be a Christian might vote for the Libertarian candidate, or might decide that it is raining and not worth getting wet to vote. They won't turn out to do electioneering. In 1992, when I was dumb and Republican, I voted for some third party candidate rather than Bush, because I was fed up with him (not because of taxes) and because I never would vote for a Democrat. (Bush the younger cured me of that bias.)

McCain would have lost a lot of the people on the right if it weren't for Palin, though she lost more moderates than she gained right wingers. Romney would have the same problem. It is not enough to get a plurality of Republicans, you need to bind them together to allow you to go for the center without losing too many.

I like your train of thought.

Do me a favor, make a prediction for VP if Romney wins. I'm curious.

[jsgoddess]

I like your train of thought.

Do me a favor, make a prediction for VP if Romney wins. I'm curious.

Santorum? I haven't really thought about it, but he was the first person who popped into my head.

[AbloyProtec]

Santorum? I haven't really thought about it, but he was the first person who popped into my head.

Are you Voyager?

[jsgoddess]

Are you Voyager?

Did you mean to send a PM?

[Lago Ys-Transform]

It is not like the Tea Party would vote for Obama, but stay home and not donate, sure.

1.) Why do you think that them not donating is a problem? The GOP has built up a pretty nice warchest in absence of a candidate to coalesce around and I don't see them slowing down.

2.) What makes you think that they would be likely to stay home? The Republican demographic has a lot more people likely to vote. I'm sure it's more likely that some of them will stay home but I really don't see them bleeding a lot of voters.

[Fear Itself]

1.) What makes you think that they would be likely to stay home? The Republican demographic has a lot more people likely to vote. The Republican demographic is old, and very opposed to changes in Social Security. If they perceive that Tea Party candidates would jam a Perry Scheme for privatizing Social Security down their throats, they will stay home.

[The wind of my soul]

The Republican demographic is old, and very opposed to changes in Social Security. If they perceive that Tea Party candidates would jam a Perry Scheme for privatizing Social Security down their throats, they will stay home.

I'm confused as to what point you're trying to make here. This thread is about Romney, and Romney has carefully distanced himself from the extreme claims about social security that Perry has been making.

[Fear Itself]

I'm confused as to what point you're trying to make here. This thread is about Romney, and Romney has carefully distanced himself from the extreme claims about social security that Perry has been making.This thread is about Romney's chances of being nominated. If the Tea Party alternative to Romney causes a significant portion of the Republican demographic to stay home, that is an argument for Romney.

[Merijeek]

The Republican demographic is old, and very opposed to changes in Social Security. If they perceive that Tea Party candidates would jam a Perry Scheme for privatizing Social Security down their throats, they will stay home.

Not if they've been told that only people under 50 will be affected. They've shown they're quite uninterested in anything that doesn't affect them.

-Joe

[Fear Itself]

Uh Oh...

Rick Perry backer Robert Jeffress: Mitt Romney not a Christian (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65445.html#ixzz1a8b6qUqo)

Texas evangelical leader Robert Jeffress, the Baptist megachurch pastor who introduced Rick Perry at the Values Voter Summit, said Friday afternoon he does not believe Mitt Romney is a Christian.

Jeffress described Romney's Mormon faith as a “cult,” and said evangelicals had only one real option in the 2012 primaries.

“That is a mainstream view, that Mormonism is a cult,” Jeffress told reporters here. “Every true, born again follower of Christ ought to embrace a Christian over a non-Christian.”

Asked by POLITICO if he believed Romney is a Christian, Jeffress answered: “No.”Jeffress is leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest evangelical denomination in the country.

[Voyager]

I like your train of thought.

Do me a favor, make a prediction for VP if Romney wins. I'm curious.


Two possibilities.
1. A Tea Party darling who hasn't screwed up in the primaries. I think that rules out Perry. There would be a lot of pressure on him to go this route. It could be Daniels.

2. A competent and fairly moderate Republican. Possibly from the Midwest. I'd feel a lot better if he did this, but I think 1 is far more likely.

[Voyager]

1.) Why do you think that them not donating is a problem? The GOP has built up a pretty nice warchest in absence of a candidate to coalesce around and I don't see them slowing down.

2.) What makes you think that they would be likely to stay home? The Republican demographic has a lot more people likely to vote. I'm sure it's more likely that some of them will stay home but I really don't see them bleeding a lot of voters.

1. This election is going to cost a billion bucks. Every penny will count. The real big money is in the PACs and is a lot further to the right than Romney.
2. Remember when the Tea Party was mad because Congress didn't push through the level of cuts they wanted? I think Romney wouldn't drive the country over a cliff due to ideology, which they would interpret as not being true to their principles. He is also going to have to move to the center for the election, which he can do more believably than the other credible candidates. Sure they vote, but would they vote for a non-Christian? It is a matter of fire in the belly. I doubt they'd have it for Romney. I'm not sure the old party getting behind him will help.

[Voyager]

This thread is about Romney's chances of being nominated. If the Tea Party alternative to Romney causes a significant portion of the Republican demographic to stay home, that is an argument for Romney.

I'm not sure that it would. Such a nomination would make a large percentage of independents vote for Obama again, though. Republicans (except for a handful) are afraid of challenging anyone on crazy talk - it would be quite easy to paint a Tea Party candidate as an extremist nut.

[Voyager]

Not if they've been told that only people under 50 will be affected. They've shown they're quite uninterested in anything that doesn't affect them.

-Joe

We've got kids. Not to mention age cutoff points might be too subtle. They are going to kill Social Security will come through loud and clear.

[PhillyGuy]

I think Romney wouldn't drive the country over a cliff due to ideology, which they would interpret as not being true to their principles.
He's made the Grover Norquist no-tax-increase pledge. So did the Bushes. But Romney surely recalls that when Bush the Elder violated the pledge, he became a one-termer. So even though Romney may not actually be all that much to the right of Obama in inclinations, he's going to be boxed in by some bad campaign promises.

As for VP, the Cain boomlet should give an idea of how Republicans more loyal to the party than I am may think. I predict it will be a person of color. As for the possibilities, Marco Rubio's recent statement that he did not want to be VP was less than Shermanesque. Susana Martinez makes more sense to me than Herman Cain, but it could be either.

[gonzomax]

With the Tea Baggers in charge, Romney will have trouble. He is seen as a Liberal, non Christian. He is an east coast ,northerner too. How far off can he be to what the baggers want? He is also a waffler.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Uh Oh...

Rick Perry backer Robert Jeffress: Mitt Romney not a Christian (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65445.html#ixzz1a8b6qUqo)Jeffress is leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest evangelical denomination in the country.

No surprise to me. I've pointed out on more than one occasion that this is how a large part of the Christian conservatives view Romney. I think there was even a thread where I mentioned visiting the mega-church my parents attend where I overheard several conversations saying basically the same thing about Mormons. Each time it has been hand waved away by other posters as if it doesn't matter.

Frankly I don't know that the Republicans have anyone in the race other than Romney who will be perceived by the always important independent voters as stable, reasonable and Presidential.

The trick is going to be how does he get past all those hardcore Mormon haters who will be voting in the primaries? If you know the answer to that one you may want to contact Romney's campaign about a position as a political consultant. Because without wins in the Southern primaries I don't see how he gets the nomination. And for the purpose of this scenario Texas is part of the South.

[Merijeek]

We've got kids. Not to mention age cutoff points might be too subtle. They are going to kill Social Security will come through loud and clear.

I doubt it. There's a reason that the continual sop to the near-AARPers is "but this won't affect your benefits".

-Joe

[a35362]

Just sharing this:

How Well Do You Know Your Romney? (http://www.whichmitt.com)

[Chronos]

I wonder if the mega-pastors will be changing their tune, should it come down to Romney vs. Obama in the general election. If the faithful must always vote for a "real Christian" over a Mormon, doesn't that imply that these pastors would have to endorse Obama?

[Merijeek]

I wonder if the mega-pastors will be changing their tune, should it come down to Romney vs. Obama in the general election. If the faithful must always vote for a "real Christian" over a Mormon, doesn't that imply that these pastors would have to endorse Obama?

Don't need to. They've already used dogwhistles (or on some cases flat out stated) that he's both a Muslim and a Socialist. No need.

I'm sure race has nothing to do with it. That'd be uncharitable.

-Joe

[Fear Itself]

Chris Christie to Endorse Mitt Romney for President (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/11/christie-to-endorse-romney-for-president/)

[Kolak of Twilo]

I wonder if the mega-pastors will be changing their tune, should it come down to Romney vs. Obama in the general election. If the faithful must always vote for a "real Christian" over a Mormon, doesn't that imply that these pastors would have to endorse Obama?

I suspect the argument will be along the lines of "The Lord can still use someone to accomplish His will even if they aren't a Christian."

Southern Baptists have a long history of classifying the LDS church as a cult and not as Christians. I doubt a presidential election will get them to change that position.

And it wouldn't surprise me if there end up being a few hyper-conservative evangelical pastors who do end up saying people should vote for Obama. Or maybe spend Election Day praying for the future of our country.

[Chronos]

I suspect the argument will be along the lines of "The Lord can still use someone to accomplish His will even if they aren't a Christian."Now, see, there's that argument, and there's the argument that the pastors are making now that voting for a Christian is always preferable to voting for a non-Christian. Either position, on its own, would be fine. But I suspect that the very same people who are making the latter argument now will also make the former argument a year from now, despite the two positions being mutually contradictory.

[astorian]

Have I done this yet?

Well, he will be. The GOP has not changed enough that someone else can beat the hair apparent.

Well, I tried to tell everyone on the SDMB ages ago that Romney would be nominated, but I was told repeatedly that I was nuts- that the GOP had moved so far to the right that a perceived moderate COULDN'T win.

Not that I'm gloating. Far from it. I have absolutely no use for Romney, who has been a lifelong liberal and is utterly unconvincing when he tries to sound like a conservative. If David Souter and Anthony Kennedy inspire you, then Mitt Romney is your guy.

I WISH I'd been totally nuts, but unfortunately, I knew my party FAR better than the Left does. The Republicans almost NEVER nominate the choice of the Religious Right. The Country Club Wing controls the Republican party, always has. And those folks usually look around and ask "Whose turn is it to run?"

NOBODY was excited about George H.W. Bush or Bob Dole, but they got the Republican nomination because it was "their turn." That's the same reason John McCain was nominated in 2008, and it's why Romney will be nominated in 2012.

Years ago, I heard someone say that a stripper has an unwritten agreement with the men in the crowd: she pretends she wants to have sex with them, and they pretend to believe her.

That's what's going on in the GOP right now. Mitt Romney is pretending to be a conservative, and next year, the Religious Right will pretend to believe him. Religious conservatives will grumble (they'd rather nominate almost ANYBODY but Romney) but they'll fall in line. They hate Obama enough to settle for a guy they (rightly) don't trust and whom they (correctly) believe will sell them out more often than not.

[kaylasdad99]

It doesn't really matter in the end who the Republicans nominate. What's important is that they never put another candidate into the Oval Office.

That said, you'll never get me to sign on to the notion that it makes any sense to be seriously RUNNING thirteen months before the election.

[gonzomax]

The 7 dwarfs have committed political suicide. Romney is becoming the only Repub standing. Cain is a joke ,but he will get attention because Romney has to play off somebody.
Palin and Bachmann have fulfilled the left wing predictions. That have shown that they are jokes. Santorum is as his name Googles, a bad joke. Perry has proven he is tool damn stupid to be taken seriously.
Romney is loved by practically nobody. The Christians don't like his religion. They don't like his Mass. policies. Nobody likes his many flip flops.
Koch money has not flowed his way. It went to Perry . Now they have to decide it they are willing to buy Romney. He is not far enough right for them.
Yet he is the last man standing.

[Gyrate]

Santorum is as his name Googles, a bad joke. What Santorum will never realize is that the Google thing is only an insurmountable obstacle because Rick himself is such a clueless douche. If he'd tone down the anti-gay rhetoric and attempt to make himself look as if he was above such petty slanders it would fade into the background. But instead he whines about how unfair Google is and how the big bad gays are picking on him, and thus proves he shouldn't be elected milk monitor, let alone President. If he can't handle this, he can't handle a real crisis.

On Romney: I'm reminded of some of the UK Conservative leadership elections during the Blair years. People like Ian Duncan Smith, William Hague and Michael Howard became Leaders of the Opposition not because they were particularly popular within the party or because they had a vision to move the party forward; it's just that the other candidates (Clarke, Heseltine, even Portillo) tended to be more polarizing and thus had a small fanbase and a larger group which despised them. IDS, Hague and (somewhat less so) Howard were all bland inoffensive choices, the least worst options on the ballots. Romney strikes me as being cut from the same mold - he's not what anyone wants but he's the least irritating second choice for everyone and that might be enough to win in the absence of a more unifying candidate.

[Chronos]

What Santorum will never realize is that the Google thing is only an insurmountable obstacle because Rick himself is such a clueless douche.Wouldn't douching with santorum be horribly unhygienic? You'd be sure to catch some sort of nasty infection.

[PhillyGuy]

It doesn't really matter in the end who the Republicans nominate. What's important is that they never put another candidate into the Oval Office.

Important to have a one-party state? Not to me.

We have rotation in office in my county (the US). If Obama wins reelection, it becomes more likely that a Republican will take that office in 2016. It also almost guarantees GOP congressional gains in 2014. And the way things are, I think it is more important which party controls congress than who the President is.

You'll probably say you want a multi-party system, just not with the GOP as a major party. But with the nation so polarized, and political moderates increasingly scarce, (http://scaredmonkeys.com/2010/12/18/gallup-poll-conservatives-continue-to-outnumber-moderates-and-libs-moderates-on-the-decline/) now is the least likely time for a party realignment.

Romney strikes me as being cut from the same mold - he's not what anyone wants but he's the least irritating second choice for everyone . . .
Putting aside Huntsman, who has hardly any support, it seems to me that the whole bunch, except for Perry and and Romney, is to Perry's right. So, logically, Perry should be their second choice. He's obviously hurt by there being so many debates, but maybe once TV ads become heavier, Perry will make a comeback. Realclearpolitics.com led me to this semi-coherent series of quotations from Rush Limbaugh (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/11/state_of_the_race_establishment_and_the_regime_rally_around_mitt_romney), the point of which seems to be that his minions should be for Cain now but prepare to switch to Perry. That seems slightly more likely to me than that Cain supporters go to Romney.

My personal best-case scenario would be for Perry to be nominated and fail dramatically, so as to discredit the more extreme side of the GOP. Unlikely, I suppose, unless the economy really picks up next year.

[Farmer Jane]

I agree that Romney is it right now. America will pick between the black guy and the Mormon. I feel some more soul-searching will be happening. :p

[gonzomax]

The Repubs are raising Cain right now. The 25 percent Romney has is the Repub base. It does not include the religious fanatics, the tea baggers or the special interest voters. Right now, that is all he can count on. The Religious right will be problematic.

[Quartz]

So, when is Cain going to go bust and the Republicans discover Karger? :D

[astorian]

The Repubs are raising Cain right now. The 25 percent Romney has is the Repub base. It does not include the religious fanatics, the tea baggers or the special interest voters. Right now, that is all he can count on. The Religious right will be problematic.

You'd like to think so, of course. Don't let me puncture your fantasy.

But reality is simpler: Romney will be the nomineee, and despite their lack of enthusiasm, most religious conservatives will come around and accept that he's their only hope to knock off Obama. There isn't going to be a convention floor bloodbath, and there isn't going to be a 3rd party candidate. Romney and Obama are all we'll have to choose from.

2012 will be a repat of 2000 and 2004- all the usual red states will stay red, all the usual blue states will stay blue (the few normall Republican states Obama managed to flip have completely soured on him). It'll be another squeaker.

[RTFirefly]

Romney will be the nomineee, and despite their lack of enthusiasm, most religious conservatives will come around and accept that he's their only hope to knock off Obama. There isn't going to be a convention floor bloodbath, and there isn't going to be a 3rd party candidate. Romney and Obama are all we'll have to choose from. This.

With Perry's standing in the polls having dropped from 32% to 13% (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/17/cnn-poll-two-thirds-of-republicans-say-minds-are-not-made-up/) in just a month and a half, he's pretty much toast. Unlike McCain in 2007, there's really no time to lie low while everyone else gets their chance and falls flat on their faces; that process has pretty much played out.

The Iowa Caucuses are on January 3, just two and a half months away. We've already run through the sudden surges and collapses in support for Perry and Trump before him, the eclipse of the Bachmann-Palin Underdrive, the inability of T-Paw to get any voters to care about his candidacy, and the totally unsurprising discovery that the only people who cared whether Newt was running for President were the D.C. pundit class. And even if there was a plausible rescuer out there, there's no time for such a person to throw together a campaign organization to compete in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Romney, for all his faults from a GOP base perspective, is the last man standing. And now the money's flooding into his campaign coffers. Barring something totally out of left field (like being caught in bed with a pair of male Mormon missionaries), he's the GOP's nominee.