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]

Originally Posted by dbx820

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 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

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]

Originally Posted by Merijeek

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]

Originally Posted by Marley23

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]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

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]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Here's an article 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]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

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]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

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 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]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

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_1...82-503544.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]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

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]

Originally Posted by 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.)

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]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

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]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

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]

Originally Posted by CitizenPained

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by gravitycrash

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]

Originally Posted by 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'.

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]

Originally Posted by gravitycrash

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]

Originally Posted by Crane

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]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

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]

Originally Posted by 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

A 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]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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