# I'm calling it: Romney will be the nominee **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 18, 2011, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515 "2011-07-18T23:37:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2011, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/41 "2011-07-21T12:50:11Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > [Public Policy Polling: Bachmann continues to surge](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. > [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Recovering\_Republican](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@Recovering\_Republican](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Recovering_Republican)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/42 "2011-07-23T11:05:13Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Money-making opportunity: [InTrade](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. ---
**Author:** ![Recovering\_Republican](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@Recovering\_Republican](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Recovering_Republican)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/43 "2011-07-23T11:10:58Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Recovering\_Republican](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@Recovering\_Republican](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Recovering_Republican)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/44 "2011-07-23T11:16:40Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/45 "2011-07-23T11:21:59Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Recovering\_Republican](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@Recovering\_Republican](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Recovering_Republican)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/46 "2011-07-23T11:25:22Z")
> [@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/gallup-22-say-they-wouldnt-vote-mormon\_574967.html](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. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/47 "2011-07-23T13:21:33Z")
> [@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. :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. ---
**Author:** ![Recovering\_Republican](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@Recovering\_Republican](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Recovering_Republican)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/48 "2011-07-23T13:42:28Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/49 "2011-07-23T14:11:11Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Recovering\_Republican](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@Recovering\_Republican](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Recovering_Republican)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/50 "2011-07-23T14:20:42Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/51 "2011-07-23T14:24:27Z")
> [@Recovering\_Republican](#): > > Except that what if a state votes to leave the union? Are we going to invade them to keep them in? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/52 "2011-07-23T14:29:45Z")
I’d go with 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/53 "2011-07-23T15:08:43Z")
> [@Recovering\_Republican](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/54 "2011-07-23T15:11:57Z")
> [@Recovering\_Republican](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/55 "2011-07-23T15:18:59Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 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? > [@BigT](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/56 "2011-07-23T15:26:07Z")
> [@Recovering\_Republican](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/57 "2011-07-23T15:43:43Z")
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.) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2011, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/58 "2011-07-23T17:04:06Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/59 "2011-08-04T03:30:44Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2011, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515/60 "2011-08-14T15:29:03Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-calling-it-romney-will-be-the-nominee/589515.md?page=4)