Matt Latimer wonders if Willard Mitt Romney is really the safe choice for the Republicans. Won’t his legendary and soon to be even more infamous flip-flopping doom him in a general election campaign? Isn’t he John Kerry on steroids? Can’t you take almost every position that Romney espouses and find an historical example of him taking the polar opposite position?
I wonder if the Republicans have any choice about nominating Romney. Rick Perry is currently polling at 4% in New Hampshire, which is even with Jon Huntsman and one point better than Michele Bachmann. The only candidates other than Romney who are polling in double digits are Herman Cain (20%) and Ron Paul (13%). Admittedly, Texans are a hard sell in New England, as George W. Bush learned in the 2000 New Hampshire primaries. But four percent?
The polling data for Iowa are outdated, but Perry had a lead in August. I imagine his support has collapsed there, too, just like it has nationally. So, who is the alternative to Romney? It can’t possibly be Herman Cain. Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy have some bipartisan appeal, but they don’t sell well in the Republican Party. Besides, he’s 76 years-old.
The Republicans have been desperate to find an alternative to Romney, but no one wants to run against a seemingly vulnerable incumbent. Originally, Romney wasn’t even going to try to compete in the Iowa Caucuses, but I bet he is rethinking that now. After all, who’s going to beat him there? And that brings up something else.
How aggressive do the other Republicans want to be about asking which Mitt they’re running against? They could tear him down the way the Democratic Establishment tore Howard Dean down, but who would replace him? What if he won the nomination anyway? At a certain point, if you can’t beat him, you need to tone down the criticism and play the good soldier.
This is a damn good ad from Perry and a blueprint for the Obama campaign: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/perrys-romneycare-ad-health-policy-gets-really-d
ramatic/2011/10/10/gIQAZMA6ZL_blog.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost
I find this Michael Bay trailer type ad, like the Pawlenty ads, ridiculous as did lots of commenters about the Pawlenty doomsday ad, except maybe as a vote-for-Obama ad – i.e. electing Mitt Romney is like having an asteroid hit the earth. Also wonder how this kind of ad will affect the movie trailer genre over the next year.
There are ~100 million voters in the US, how many of them have no reason not to vote for Romney? They’re going to vote party, then general economic conditions, then narrative, and affect, then, maybe policies.
They’re the people who buy a car and never go to Consumer Reports‘ website. How many of them go to Consumer Reports‘ website and buy the car they like anyways?
He looks like a president. He makes President-noises. And they’re not going to go into detailed analysis of his flip-flopping. Yeah, it’s flip-flopping, but it’s professional flip-flopping.
If the true believers do nothing, he’s at least even-money to get into the White House, where he’ll do whatever they want. The GOP rank-and-file, if they had an ounce of sense in their echoing heads, would sit down, shut up and wait.
Some people can’t take ‘Yes’ for an answer.
Well we are talking the Party of No here; the TParty which promised its candidates would go to Wash and never compromise their platform…so with that DNA it won’t matter if the middle of the roaders in the party like or dislike Romney, I just can’t picture a Tbagger wrapping a teabag around his nose and voting for Mitt and there goes a block of votes.
Course if the Koch bros start tossing big $ his way who knows?
We have always been at war with
EurasiaEastasia.If Ron Paul goes hard into NH…and I’m betting that he will…he will mop the joint up. NH Ratpubs…you know, the real “Live Free Or Die” types?…plus those pesky independent Paul supporters about whom the Rats have been bitterly complaining after getting their asses kicked time and again in straw polls, caucuses and conventions (“Sob!!! Sob!!! They stole our fix!!!”) will line up to put the kibosh on Mitt “FlipFlop” Romney.
Bet on it.
Watch.
AG
P.S. Mormons ain’t too popular up that way either.
P.P.S. All Paul has to do to become the favorite to win the whole enchilada (Not just the Rat nomination…all the way to the White House.) is to support the “Occupy Wall Street” folks. Betcha he’s chewin’ on the idea, too. Trying to figure out how best to spin it so he’s still seen as a conservative.
Betcha.
According to a new poll, Paul is in 3rd place right now in NH. Cain is in 2nd. Best part of the poll, is only 10% are committed to voting for Romney.
http://www.iop.harvard.edu/News-Press/Press-Releases/NEW-POLL-FROM-INSTITUTES-OF-POLITICS-AT-HARVARD
,-SAINT-ANSELM-FINDS-ROMNEY-LEADING-NH-PRIMARY-FIELD-BY-18-POINTS
I’ll say it again– the only thing that folks are ‘committed’ to when it comes to Willard is..
THAT HIS CHECKS CLEAR.
that’s it.
nobody’s straining themselves to support Willard.
And who is “Willard,” again?
Sorry, I’m not up on the latest leftiness pol jargon. “Wllard” to me is the name of a character in a movie who trained rats to do his bidding.
Now…that looks more like an unholy cross between Rick Santorum and Eric Cantor
than it does anybody w/a real chance to get any kind of nomination, even for local dogcatcher.
So…who’s “Willard” to you?
AG
bio
Oh.
Thanks.
AG
you’re being silly again.
No I’m not, Booman.
I’m dead serious.
The same societal currents that created the Tea Party and the totally unexpected successes (so far) of the nascent “Occupy” movements are going to continue, and “Throw the bastids out” is the theme of the day. Maybe of the year. Just walking-around people are beginning to recognize that both parties are totally owned by the corporate PermaGov that has put them…and this country…into such a sorry state. Why is it “silly” to think that the one national politician who does not mealy-mouth or kowtow to that Permanent Government is going to get a lot of votes? Especially if he has a real organization and a great deal of monetary support as well. Why is it “silly” to hope that the one real anti-war candidate…sorry, Booman, I wish it were otherwise but there it is…will profit from the “American Autumn” that is fast coming upon us?
Silly?
I think that expecting barack Obama to be anything but a kinder, gentler, more intelligent (and thus more effective) tool of that Permanent Government is pretty fucking silly, myself.
Four more years of this kind of “progress?” Sounds like a recipe for reverse gear, to me. Like a recipe for disaster, actually. I’m all for taking the plunge…any plunge, pretty near…and I am seeing more and more people feeling the same way. One way or another, this shit has got to stop!!!
AG
We’re not electing someone who is going to be 80 by the time his first term is up. And Paul would get capped long before he ever saw the Oval Office. Figuratively, or literally if need be.
I do find it very curious that it’s OCTOBER and we don’t have new polling on IOWA
Not that I’m ruling out Mitt, but at this point in the race against George H.W. Bush, the leader in the Democratic contest was Jerry Brown (former Governor of California), Democratic insiders were begging Mario Cuomo to get in the race, and some hick named Bill Clinton from Little Rock Arkansas was hovering around 6% in the polls.
Right. But Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann are not on Bill Clinton’s level in any area. Rick Perry could play that role, but he’s going around saying it’s heartless to deny an education to the sons and daughters of undocumented workers.
Also, Bill Clinton gave the Keynote Address at the 1988 DNC Convention, just as Obama did so at the 2004 convention. You can’t say that about Herman Cain. And Jon Huntsman just got zero percent in a national poll. What are you left with? Gingrich?
That’s always the reply I see when this is pointed out.
The problem is that, in 1991, Bill Clinton was not considered to be on Bill Clinton’s level in any area either. He was a joke candidate. A hick from the sticks who could never win against the electoral strength of the supposedly popular George H. W. Bush. We think more highly of Bill Clinton’s capabilities, now, because he’s a historical figure who defeated an incumbent president and went on to lead during a time of economic prosperity and relative peace.
I doubt that the general impression of him at the time was any higher than our current impression of Perry, Huntsman, Gingrich, Cain or Paul and his odds of winning the Democratic nomination didn’t stand much higher than their’s do today, either.
well, it was harder to know a candidate back then, especially one who wasn’t in Washington. I was impressed with Clinton from the moment I first saw him campaign, but I didn’t know about him before 1991. I think I know plenty about the candidate in this race and none of them have the potential to be as good as Clinton on any level except keeping it in their pants.
I assume we’re talking here about a candidate’s ability to get elected president and that you’re arguing Republicans have no choice but to nominate Romney.
I’m arguing that they have plenty of choices. I don’t happen to like any of them, but that’s beside the point. I’m also arguing that political junkies tend to overrate their knowledge of the candidates and especially to overvalue polls this early in the game. Nate Silver has a post up today about the poor performance of New Hampshire polls even in predicting the ultimate winner of the New Hampshire primary. If polls can’t tell you the winner of the state in question, they tell you nothing about nationwide electability. And you’re mistaken if you think the typical voter knows more about the candidates today than they did when Bill Clinton was running.
Four years ago people were debating whether Giuliani was an unstoppable juggernaut, or whether Clinton had a shot at the prize, while Obama was being dismissed as a political novice for suggesting that he’d go into Pakistan if he had intelligence that OBL was there. I have no idea who will win the Republican nomination in 2012, but I’m absolutely certain that most of what we think we know about the next presidential election will turn out to be completely wrong. And most of the polls you’re reading today belong in the garbage.
would people not warmed to Romney give Cain/Perry (I leave out Bachmann, cause I never believed the GOP would ever nominate a female candidate) a “protest” vote as some sort of “rebuke” of Romney
At this point in the game, only someone with national creds could step into a half finished nomination and who would that be, Pat Buchanan? Bill O’Reilly? please!
So as long as the Rep core keeps playing Goldylocks with today’s candidates, they’ll force a 3rd party run. I just can’t decide if that will make Grover jubilant or suicidal. mmm
Isn’t Florida going to be the first primary now? What effect does that potentially have on NH?
If Mitt gets bumped, the only alternative I see shaping up right now is…well, I don’t really see an alternative. If the GOP is cool with a Mormon (doubtful) then Huntsman might make up some rapid ground. Cain? Never. The negatives are too high. Interesting to note that Newt! has apparently stopped the bleeding and managed to tick up to about the 10% level in some polls. In the historical view, that can be a good position this far out, as long as there’s some steady momentum.
What’s Jeb up to? Have there been any rumors?
Florida cannot be the first primary…Iowa/NH will just keep moving before it the farther they push back.
Anyway, Florida decided on a date already:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-09-30/business/os-presidential-primary-date-set-20110929_1_
national-party-rules-tampa-next-summer-rnc
Rumors, yes.The idea that a brokered convention might well wind up drafting Jeb Bush.
I try to imagine what that would be like.
The followers of whoever comes out of the primaries on top or near the top of the heap will be pissed off.
And the old question still arises: either he makes pretty music to the tea party or he doesn’t. I think he would have to. So it’s still the Tea Party vs. everyone else.
Secondly, nothing would galvanize Democrats like another Bush.
That’s not really my angle. I’m thinking more about the restrictive voter laws, losing registration drive groups like ACORN and the League of Women Voters, shortened ballot times, restricted access, etc etc…I’ve heard that just the new ID laws in various states could easily wipe out 5 million (mostly democratic) votes in 2012, which is more than the margin of victory in the popular vote in most presidential elections.
My thoughts on Jeb have always been that he’ll keep his powder dry until 2016 when he doesn’t have to face an incumbent. When you look at the various initiatives to restrict voting, couple that with the black box machine vote, plus depressed Dem turnout (apparently GOP voter enthusiasm is nearly 2:1 over Dems) then Jeb faces a situation where one of the already-declared jokers gets “his presidency,” and I don’t think he’d sit out for that.
Forget brokered conventions. If Jeb jumps in while there’s still time to get on the primary ballot in enough states, that, imo, means the fix is in and he knows beyond a reasonable doubt that PBHO is out in 2012, meaning that whoever makes it to the GOP ballot is a shoe-in.
I was just wondering out loud if there were any rumors about private polling or exploratory committees and the like. I doubt it; this far out I don’t think anybody can predict where all these voter initiatives will end up, but as a lifelong Dem voter I don’t feel good about the odds.
You probably think I’m being naive, but I would venture to say that the president is looking into the issue of voter suppression and intends to do something about it.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/163774/obama-denounces-new-gop-voting-laws-says-doj-investigating
It would be naive of the president not to be doing everything he could. I just don’t know how much can be done at the federal level without legislation.
If the article is correct, the legislation already exists. It’s more a question of enforcement. Enforcement of federal acts is under the executive branch, which answers to the president.