2012 GOP, who's it going to be?

[Scuzz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzz
Geez, I hate doing this, but, based on what? What would be the legal standing for the suit?

Emotional distress from being forced to act contrary to their religious beliefs?

I really don't see that getting much traction in the legal system.

[JeffL]

I really have to laugh out loud as Gingrich tries to paint Romney as the "establishment" candidate and pontificates that the Republican establishment is afraid of him (Gingrich) because he is so anti-GOP establishment.

Right. Dude was in Congress, was Speaker, spends all his time selling books and selling speeches, selling his consulting signature to anyone who will pay him (including Freddie Mac,) panders to anyone of any persuasion if they'll pay him six figures. He's practically Ron Paul anti-establishment. Sheesh.

[jeffd]

That's Gingrich for you!

[JeffL]

As long as the economy doesn't tank I think he'll win.

This is usually a very logical and true statement about an incumbent President. But the economy does suck and has sucked his entire term and unemployment will likely still be around 8.5% come election time. I really think people underestimate how simply most voters think about this issue: economy is good, my family is doing great, President is doing good. Economy sucks, my family (and friends etc.) have suffered, President sucks. A lot of voters hear everything else the way the kids in Charlie Brown cartoons hear adults ("blah blah blaaah blah blah.)

[Scuzz]

I think many people think the far right of the republican party is in control because they are the noisy part of the party, the Hannity's, Limbaugh's, Tea Party, wacky religious groups etc. But the largest voting block is the center to left of the party (still right of the Dems of course). It is that block that will select the next presidential candidate this year. Of course Romney will need the right to go to the polls but having Obama as an opponent should help that.

Interesting, I listen to a few minutes of Limbaugh from time to time and he is attacking Gingrich while still supporting Santorum. I even heard him defend Romney against a Gingrich attack. One gets the feeling Gingrich must have really violated some republican tenant in running for president this year.

[The Mad Hatter]

This is usually a very logical and true statement about an incumbent President. But the economy does suck and has sucked his entire term and unemployment will likely still be around 8.5% come election time. I really think people underestimate how simply most voters think about this issue: economy is good, my family is doing great, President is doing good. Economy sucks, my family (and friends etc.) have suffered, President sucks. A lot of voters hear everything else the way the kids in Charlie Brown cartoons hear adults ("blah blah blaaah blah blah.)

If the Republicans had come up with a real insurgent candidate, I'd agree. Since they only had lunatics to choose from though they went with Romney, and Romney is like a caricature of the people held most responsible for the economy tanking. He radiates "soulless corporate CEO", right down to the hair and rigid grin. Romney can't lead a fight against the Man - he is the Man. In the age of the Tea Party and the Occupy movements, I don't see how that will win.

[Houngan]

I really have to laugh out loud as Gingrich tries to paint Romney as the "establishment" candidate and pontificates that the Republican establishment is afraid of him (Gingrich) because he is so anti-GOP establishment.

Right. Dude was in Congress, was Speaker, spends all his time selling books and selling speeches, selling his consulting signature to anyone who will pay him (including Freddie Mac,) panders to anyone of any persuasion if they'll pay him six figures. He's practically Ron Paul anti-establishment. Sheesh.

Romney actually is the "establishment" candidate now, since the establishment is driven for and by the ultra-wealthy. Too subtle a point for the campaign trail, but the entire process has become a joke at this point. The Democrats had a tiny window where they could have meaningfully reformed banking and finance and they blew it on idealism.

H.

[Hugin]

This is usually a very logical and true statement about an incumbent President. But the economy does suck and has sucked his entire term and unemployment will likely still be around 8.5% come election time. I really think people underestimate how simply most voters think about this issue: economy is good, my family is doing great, President is doing good. Economy sucks, my family (and friends etc.) have suffered, President sucks. A lot of voters hear everything else the way the kids in Charlie Brown cartoons hear adults ("blah blah blaaah blah blah.)

The key factor actually seems to be not so much how people perceive the economy, but where they perceive the economy is going. i.e., things can be bad, so long as people feel things are getting better.

[Murbella]

No. Huntsman tried that and it didn't play too well to the primary crowds. Plus you have Gingrich doing his whole "liberal is a dirty word" thing right now, so even hinting of a moderate tenancy is showing weakness.


Yeah, but such is the nature of the primaries. This is where Obama actually has a big leg up - since he has no challenger for the nomination he doesn't have to pander to the Far Left and then repudiate it later on (this time).

Yes, this made me laugh when Gingrich's daughter did an interview where they talked about people not liking their father and calling him names. They said something to the effect of "They might even call our father a communist!" This is funny since calling people liberals, moderates, socialists or more is a key republican strategy and their father follows it to the letter.

[JeffL]

The key factor actually seems to be not so much how people perceive the economy, but where they perceive the economy is going. i.e., things can be bad, so long as people feel things are getting better.

True, but this is where a good campaigner (and I think the way Romney turned the Gingrich momentum around so quickly shows it may be a mistake to underestimate him) can keep the incumbent on their heels, in defensive mode all of the time. It is exactly what Clinton was able to do with Bush I - we were absolutely coming out of the recession (one which was MUCH less severe than this one, and one in which far fewer people felt the pain) but as Bush tried to tell the voters, hey, we're coming out of this, things are getting better, Clinton was able to repeatedly ask the voters "Do you know anyone who is still looking for a job? Ask them how good they feel about the economy. Does it feel like it's a lot better for you?" and that easily caught on. Again - in a much, much less painful and catastrophic economy.

I'm not saying that Obama doesn't have a chance to win, just that I think it may be naive to think the voters will blame the Republicans for the last 4 years and vote with an attitude of "Well, the economy still sucks, unemployment has not really gone down while Obama was President, but I'll vote for him again even though he wasn't effective at fixing the problem because it really isn't his problem and he didn't have the power to fix it." Any good campaign manager can make some major points when that is the opposing position.

Gallup had a little blurb today that said if Obama only won states where he has a net positive approval rating today, he'd lose in a landslide. That doesn't indicate America is rallying behind the guy in any kind of significant way.

[Lorini]

Except Bush 1 promised no new taxes and then raised taxes. A lot of people were mad at him about that.

[MatthewF]

Except Bush 1 promised no new taxes and then raised taxes. A lot of people were mad at him about that.

That absolutely killed Bush I. I can still hear that sound bite in my head: "Read my lips: NO. NEW. TAXES."

[Mark Asher]

This is usually a very logical and true statement about an incumbent President. But the economy does suck and has sucked his entire term and unemployment will likely still be around 8.5% come election time. I really think people underestimate how simply most voters think about this issue: economy is good, my family is doing great, President is doing good. Economy sucks, my family (and friends etc.) have suffered, President sucks. A lot of voters hear everything else the way the kids in Charlie Brown cartoons hear adults ("blah blah blaaah blah blah.)

I think what it will come down to is which party does the best job of energizing its base. We know each party is going to get about 44% of the vote guaranteed. It will be a close election unless something unexpected happens -- the economy collapses again, some crazy skeleton in Romney's closet springs to life, maybe Ron Paul runs a third party challenge as a Libertarian, etc.

[Jason Townsend]

What Jeff's saying could easily be borne out - it's simply too early to tell right now because the "undecideds" and other vast swathes of the electorate haven't really begun whatever the hell their decision-making process is yet - there are no real numbers yet, in other words, which means predicting the fall election is at this point just down to economic determinism + super long range forcasts. You have as much reliability predicting the weekly weather forcast in November as the outcome of the general election.

I'm pessimistic because economic perceptions are so important and so likely to be unfavourable for Democrats; that tends to be a big tidal predictor that has to be factored in however things fall with "Bain Capital" or "4 years of failure" or Kenyan anticolonial sleeper cells or whatever crazy shit we're talking about in August. If Europe drags the world economy down, we could see Romney run away with things a month or two before the election; I have a harder time imagining an Obama romp because of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of Romney and his party suddenly smacking America in the forehead.

[Papageno]

Romney actually is the "establishment" candidate now, since the establishment is driven for and by the ultra-wealthy. Too subtle a point for the campaign trail, but the entire process has become a joke at this point. The Democrats had a tiny window where they could have meaningfully reformed banking and finance and they blew it on idealism.

H.

I don't know what kind of "idealism" you're talking about, unless it's the Administration's misguided belief that the GOP members of Congress during 2009 and 2010 had any intention of bargaining in good faith on ANYTHING. Unfortunately, the Dems are mostly in bed with Wall St. and the investment banking sector, so Dodd-Frank ended up being so watered down as to be nearly meaningless.

[Dave Markell]

NPR had a brief piece last night where one of the guests compared the main donors to the Romney and Obama campaigns. They were identical--GoldmanSachs, Citi, and so on. Both sides are primarily financed by the establishment, with predictable results. We're going to be paying for the Citizens United decision for a long, long time.

[Papageno]

Interestingly, however, a much greater number of donors to the Obama campaign are in the "under 200 dollar" range vs. the Romney campaign, per what I heard on Morning Edition today (or maybe it was yesterday on ATC). Now whether it makes much of a difference as a proportion of the amounts raised (or on policy positions), who knows.

[Jason Townsend]

"Small-dollar donations aren't expected to matter as much in this election" is by all accounts the understatement of 2012; it's "our" millionaires against theirs.

Elizabeth Drew, NYRB: Can We Have a Democratic Election?

[Papageno]

One can only hope that "our" millionaires believe in "noblesse oblige" and long-term sustainability and somewhat shared prosperity vs. their own short-term gain.

[Tin Wisdom]

It is exactly what Clinton was able to do with Bush I - we were absolutely coming out of the recession (one which was MUCH less severe than this one, and one in which far fewer people felt the pain) but as Bush tried to tell the voters, hey, we're coming out of this, things are getting better, Clinton was able to repeatedly ask the voters "Do you know anyone who is still looking for a job? Ask them how good they feel about the economy. Does it feel like it's a lot better for you?" and that easily caught on. Again - in a much, much less painful and catastrophic economy.

Primary difference was that Bush was held responsible for the recession because his party (and to a lesser extent, he himself) had been in power for twelve years -- he could not claim that the economy wasn't his doing. Sure, it was getting better, but the electorate still blamed him for its existence in the first place.

By contrast, Obama still doesn't "own" this bad economy: even Republicans (in polling) blame Bush II for the current situation. They can try and say that Obama has had four years to fix it and done nothing, but recent crap like the payroll tax extension has cemented in the voters' minds that it is the GOP/Tea Partiers that are preventing him from doing anything meaningful.

Ironically, one area of relatively good economic news is from the Detroit car manufacturing sector. And here the general public gives credit to Obama... when the majority of the heavy lifting was actually done by Bush II.

[Lorini]

The heavy lifting wouldn't have counted for much had GM gone bankrupt....

[Jason Townsend]

Primary difference was that Bush was held responsible for the recession because his party (and to a lesser extent, he himself) had been in power for twelve years -- he could not claim that the economy wasn't his doing. Sure, it was getting better, but the electorate still blamed him for its existence in the first place.

The GOP had the Senate from '81-'87, but the House was Democratic from '33-'95, aside from '47-'49. It was a different Democratic party back then, of course, but the "party was in power" thing has to be surrounded by caveats.

I put it down to perceptions of the economy, party fatigue at the Presidential level, and the charisma gap, which may not be very different from what you're saying.

[strategy]

Romney just keeps on delivering fantastic soundbites: “I’m not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there.”

Facepalm. I know this is taken out of context, but it's really amazing that this guy is actually an electable candidate in the current economic climate.

[Scuzz]

Romney just keeps on delivering fantastic soundbites: “I’m not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there.”

Facepalm. I know this is taken out of context, but it's really amazing that this guy is actually an electable candidate in the current economic climate.

That really means nothing without knowing the context, although it would make great Demo billboard fodder.

[strategy]

I know the context (it's a CNN interview from earlier this morning). It's just absurd that his campaign even let him say something like that, no matter what the context is. They should know how it will sound.

Even norwegian papers are running this quote as a headline to US election stories now. It's that dumb.

[Jason Townsend]

Exactly what kind of context could rescue a remark like that? He was rehearsing for a play?

[Timex]

He said that he wasn't focusing on the very poor, or the very rich, but rather wanted to focus on the 90-95% of America that made up the middle.

EDIT:
Actual Quote:

As the day began, Romney told CNN from Florida: "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

"You can focus on the very poor, that's not my focus," he said.

[Jason Townsend]

I'll grant that his apparent innumeracy does momentarily distract from his appalling callousness.

[Scuzz]

I'll grant that his apparent innumeracy does momentarily distract from his appalling callousness.

Stated in context that isn't nearly as stupid sounding as it did on it's own. But he will very much regret the way he said it.

[Timex]

Ya, its not really something that you can spin in a real positive light.