Is Mitt the new Hillary?

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!

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.

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

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.

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

[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”

<snerk> “Mittens”

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.


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. :confused:

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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

The establishment was very much behind her. That didn’t start to change until Obama made them think he could win.

Quoth CitizenPained:

Or at least, he did what Dean tried to do. Obviously Obama had more success with it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!