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.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

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]

Originally Posted by Mosier

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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,

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

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]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

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!!!

[flickster]

Originally Posted by CaptMurdock

Perry can't even beat Obama in a poll in his own state!!!

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]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

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_oper...kHomePage=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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by jtgain

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....-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]

Originally Posted by jtgain

"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]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

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]

Originally Posted by Girl Next Door

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]

Originally Posted by Finagle

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

Gold star for reading comprehension.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by flickster

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]

Originally Posted by Locrian

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

When do we get to hear the yapping about how he couldn't even win his own state?

[Exapno Mapcase]

Nate Silver latest parsing of the polls is interesting. 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]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi;140410d19

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]

Originally Posted by flickster

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]

Originally Posted by Chronos

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]

Originally Posted by Frank

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]

Originally Posted by flickster

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]

Originally Posted by flickster

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

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.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot....-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.

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

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]

Originally Posted by Jas09

Money-making opportunity: http://www.intrade.com/?request_oper...kHomePage=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]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

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]

Originally Posted by Frank

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]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

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]

Originally Posted by Kolga

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/...on_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]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

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.

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]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

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

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]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

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]

Originally Posted by Frank

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.