Romney

[calicoug]

Perhaps you are not aware of what really drives passion in our current electorate. Obama did not drive the passion, dislike of President Bush drove it. Obama did a good job of exploiting it but that exploitation is part of his problem for re-election.

Quite honestly, Obama was a disaster of a candidate. But nobody really cared that much about the candidate they tended to care more about what they perceived the were voting against. I think the next election will have similar dynamics because the perceived disasters afflicting this country go way beyond the current crop of Republican candidates. Romney just needs to keep it simple and about the economy. Obama can't talk about it, he can't campaign about it. He can just say "President Bush drove it into a ditch that every year I keep realizing was bigger than the year before." Do you think that is going to lead him to a victory?

That is not to say that I think Romney is a sure-bet to win but given how angry right wingers are with Obama, it is my perspective that Romney will be the recipient of a very intense core electorate.

This is where you are mistaken. The right wingers are the very same group that can't stand Romney.

[LA Ute]

This is where you are mistaken. The right wingers are the very same group that can't stand Romney.

They dislike Obama much, much more.

[Goatnapper'96]

I think most smart people knew this wouldn't likely be all fixed in 4 years. It's a bit late for those smart people to pretend they thought it would be and blame Obama for not having made it all better!

Expectations were certainly very high for the man and he has clearly not lived up to those expectations. That's in part his fault and in part the fault of Congress.

I don't recall Obama saying "yes I can...but it will take me 8 years!"

Look, most smart people knew he was full of shit in 2008 but smart people don't always decide elections. He told dumb people a load of shit and now much of it is going to come home to roost.

That is the politics...he is Lebron and he can play at this level!

[Color Me Badd Fan]

They dislike Obama much, much more.

They also disliked McCain, and the only thing that McCain did was keep it within 7 points a month after the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression and running with the same party as an incumbent president who had an approval rating in the 20s (maybe it was in the 30s, but who's counting once it gets to the low 40s which is territory Obama is currently occupying).

[Goatnapper'96]

This is where you are mistaken. The right wingers are the very same group that can't stand Romney.

You are fixiated on this issue like a Ute fan who just cannot understand why some mormons support BYU despite the obvious damage it does to the LDS Church's reputation. It is just so clear to them and they cannot understand why so many of their co-religionists have their head in the sand.

Trust me. I am a right winger. I know many right wingers. They really dislike Obama a great deal more than they dislike Romney. Give our social conservatives time to come around. They were a key constituency for a two term President and thought they were in the catbird seat in the Republican Party. It is taking them some time to realize that the pressing economic concerns are trumping their concerns.

The only thing that could change this is if it comes out that Obama is getting favors from interns that he oughtn't be getting. However, as much as I am no fan of Obama's political agenda I think the dude is a stand up good human being.

[Goatnapper'96]

Krauthammer had a pretty good point -- and I think Clark Addison made a similar point several months ago. Basically as the economy improves many people will jump back in and start looking for a job, this will actually cause the unemployment rate to increase.

The increasing unemployment rate leading up to the 2010 midterms turned what would have been a 30-40 seat gain into the absolute ass-pounding the Democrats received. That unemployment number more than anything else is going to shape everyone's impression of the state of the economy.

The other thing to consider is that Obama can't talk himself out of a paper bag at this point. What have been the low points of his presidency? BP? Solyndra? The debt ceiling fight? The more that guy talks, the more people dislike him. He's already said too much and he's increasingly regarded as a phony.

Finally, is Romney going to lose any of the McCain states? No, absolutely not. What states will Romney definitely capture from Obama that Bush won in 2004? Does anyone realistically think that Romney won't get Virginia, Indiana, North Carolina and that one vote from Nebraska back? Add in the net +5 electoral votes going to the solid red states and that alone is 218 electoral votes.

Romney at this point is 52 electoral votes away. I'll just say this -- Obama beat McCain 50.1% to 48.1% in 2008 in Florida. The gloss is off Obama and he's going to have to have a damn good economic upswing to perform as well in Florida. Florida alone is 29 electoral votes. All of a sudden Romney is 23 electoral votes away.

We're left with the remainder of states that Bush carried in 2000 and 2004:

Ohio 18

Colorado 9

Nevada 6

Total 33

And the states that Bush carried in one of those elections:

New Mexico 5

New Hampshire 4

Iowa 6

Total 15

I think New Hampshire, Nevada and Colorado are likely pickups for someone like Romney, that's 19 electoral votes. I think Iowa is a very unlikely pickup for Romney. 23 votes remain between New Mexico and Ohio, Romney needs 4 votes at that point...

...but here's what Romney brings to the table that George W. Bush couldn't bring to the table simply because of who he was and that John McCain couldn't bring because of the terrible circumstances that destroyed his campaign in the Fall of 2008 -- Romney isn't regarded as a social conservative ideologue, he's a big tent Republican and Obama has royally effed up any economic cred the Democrats earned between Bill Clinton's administration and whatever cred the Republicans lost during W.'s administration. The single biggest reason people in the upper midwest have refused to go GOP in awhile is because of the social conservatism combined with a lack of an economic edge the GOP was perceived to hold over the Democrats. The Democrats don't have an economic edge anymore over the GOP that was made abundantly clear in 2010. In addition, they're not only running a candidate who's not running on a social conservatism platform, but he's a guy who has some economic chops. So, I think, Romney puts the following states in play:

Michigan 16

Pennsylvania 20

Wisconsin 10

The summary here is that Romney would really only be 23 votes away from getting the election. Between Nevada, Colorado, New Hampshire New Mexico, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, there are 84 votes up in the air. Unless there is a fairly dramatic turnaround in the economy, I think it's a tall order for Obama to defend more than 61 of those votes given his record.

I am not so certain that the Commonwealth and North Carolina are in the bag so easily. New Mexico is going to go Democrat. The former Republican governor is going to be on the Libertarian ticket and he will take away enough votes from Romney to give the state to Obama. I think New Hampshire is Romney's. I think the Brother Heller and Brother Romney connection will bring in record numbers of voters in the Moapa Valley and that leads to a victory for Romney. Colorado will go Democrat under the guidance of the Udall Jack Mormon Clan and so will Wisconsin - the wacky libs up there are upset but not that upset. The most amazing shift to me is the unpopularity of Obama in the Rust Belt. He is abandoning it as a strategy and with Romney's family roots some of those states are going to move to red in 2012. I think Romney wins it by picking up Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina and Old Virginny returns!

[oxcoug]

I don't think guys like BYU 71 is describing are ideologues, they just don't want to lose money by expanding their business in an uncertain and toxic economic environment. Obama and the Democrats have played a large role in creating that environment.

I think you're right here and I think that thinking voters - esp of the business-minded variety - have good cause to be very concerned about how Obama would operate in a second term.

Even in a first term he's shown a readiness to focus more on his political agenda than on the urgent business of the US economy - what will he be like in a second term when he doesn't have to worry about protecting his election chances?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

You are fixiated on this issue like a Ute fan who just cannot understand why some mormons support BYU despite the obvious damage it does to the LDS Church's reputation. It is just so clear to them and they cannot understand why so many of their co-religionists have their head in the sand.

Trust me. I am a right winger. I know many right wingers. They really dislike Obama a great deal more than they dislike Romney. Give our social conservatives time to come around. They were a key constituency for a two term President and thought they were in the catbird seat in the Republican Party. It is taking them some time to realize that the pressing economic concerns are trumping their concerns.

The only thing that could change this is if it comes out that Obama is getting favors from interns that he oughtn't be getting. However, as much as I am no fan of Obama's political agenda I think the dude is a stand up good human being.

What the Dems are imagining is what really happened in 2006. The GOP voters were turned off by the perceived corruption and the amnesty issue that came to the front that summer. There wasn't anything to rally the troops. Independents certainly weren't motivated to vote for the GOP.

There's an enormous difference between 2006 and 2012. The economy will likely still be perceived to be in the shitter. While Obama may personally be a good family man and it would be incredibly difficult to imagine him engaging in some Clinton/Gingrich type shenanigans, an argument can be made that there has been some corruption in the form of valued/connected constituencies getting favorable treatment (more than what other administrations have done). At best, massive amounts of money given to Obama to dispense under the stimulus bill were wasted on pie in the sky liberal ideals, at worst they were payoffs to Democratic donors and constituencies. The best case scenario makes the Obama administration look foolish, the worst case scenario makes them look corrupt. Is it worse to appear foolish or corrupt?

The reason why the GOP lost badly in 2006 and then 2008 was because both foolishness and corruption were present in varying levels. Is Romney regarded as either? That would be news to me. On the other hand Obama has staked a claim on both traits.

[Goatnapper'96]

I think you're right here and I think that thinking voters - esp of the business-minded variety - have good cause to be very concerned about how Obama would operate in a second term.

Even in a first term he's shown a readiness to focus more on his political agenda than on the urgent business of the US economy - what will he be like in a second term when he doesn't have to worry about protecting his election chances?

Impotent because he won't have the support he had in Congress during his first two years.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I am not so certain that the Commonwealth and North Carolina are in the bag so easily. New Mexico is going to go Democrat. The former Republican governor is going to be on the Libertarian ticket and he will take away enough votes from Romney to give the state to Obama. I think New Hampshire is Romney's. I think the Brother Heller and Brother Romney connection will bring in record numbers of voters in the Moapa Valley and that leads to a victory for Romney. Colorado will go Democrat under the guidance of the Udall Jack Mormon Clan and so will Wisconsin - the wacky libs up there are upset but not that upset. The most amazing shift to me is the unpopularity of Obama in the Rust Belt. He is abandoning it as a strategy and with Romney's family roots some of those states are going to move to red in 2012. I think Romney wins it by picking up Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina and Old Virginny returns!

I agree on New Mexico, I think demographics work against Romney there. However I disagree on Colorado. As I mentioned before, the social conservatism bent present in the 2000 and 2004 elections made a number of states simply unwinnable for the GOP. Then by 2008, the GOP had lost all economic credibility. Obama has given back that credibility -- which is why Virginia and North Carolina (increasingly less Southern) will come back into the fold and the upper midwest states are in play. Colorado and Nevada are classically Western conservative states -- not Southern conservative states. Romney will hold more appeal to these voters.

This is why what Mitch Daniels had to say about social conservatism being a loser for the GOP was so important. Over emphasis on that kind of stuff is what's allowed the Democrats to basically make the West Coast and northeast untouchable. A candidate like George W. Bush can only win an election by a thin margin. Social conservatism isn't a big tent issue. Fiscal conservatism and common-sense government is a huge big tent issue. It's common sense to draw the oil out of North Dakota and build the biggest damn pipeline from Canada down to Texas and Louisiana. Why the hell are we sending money to places like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria? Why are we using tax dollars to prop up businesses that can't make it without subsidies?

And what's going to happen if the GOP decides to deemphasize social conservatism? Is the South all of a sudden going to run back to the Democrats?

[calicoug]

You are fixiated on this issue like a Ute fan who just cannot understand why some mormons support BYU despite the obvious damage it does to the LDS Church's reputation. It is just so clear to them and they cannot understand why so many of their co-religionists have their head in the sand.

Trust me. I am a right winger. I know many right wingers. They really dislike Obama a great deal more than they dislike Romney. Give our social conservatives time to come around. They were a key constituency for a two term President and thought they were in the catbird seat in the Republican Party. It is taking them some time to realize that the pressing economic concerns are trumping their concerns.

The only thing that could change this is if it comes out that Obama is getting favors from interns that he oughtn't be getting. However, as much as I am no fan of Obama's political agenda I think the dude is a stand up good human being.

I have not disagreed with your second paragraph at all. You are just again misstating what I wrote. Yes- right wingers do dislike Obama more than Romney, but that doesn't translate into being fired up in support of Romney. THAT's his problem. The right wingers are almost certainly NOT going to go out in droves to cast a vote for a guy they dislike, but dislike less than the other guy. That being said, the right wingers will go out in droves for a Bachmann or a Santorum, but nobody else will.

I've said this a dozen times already, but this is why the Republican party is in such a mess right now. The candidates they are running are largely morons and the ones who aren't morons are largely disliked. There is a real rift within the party that will be tough to reconcile. In one group, you have the tea party element which is anti-intellectual, anti-government, and anti-most everything except saying no. In another group, you have religious evangelicals (some of whom are also in the tea party group). In another group, you have national security conservatives (though this block is losing influence quickly), and lastly you have your economic conservatives. Republicans have been successful in the past because they were able (from Reagan on) to cobble those groups together (pre tea party) by convincing the evangelicals that their needs would be met if they supported the national security/economic group. Then Bush came into office and killed off the conservative economic group and focused almost exclusively on national security. The economic conservatives were left wandering as were evangelicals. The tea party siphoned off some of each group (and added others) but their radicalism dominated every other group.

So which candidate today can bring the groups together to win? Romney is the only one who can make even a mild attempt at it, but he necessarily will lose substantial support from the tea party group and the evangelicals (while losing less from the national security group and attracting those in the economics group). That's not all that different from McCain's support demographics in 2008 (just flip national security and economics).

[Goatnapper'96]

I have not disagreed with your second paragraph at all. You are just again misstating what I wrote. Yes- right wingers do dislike Obama more than Romney, but that doesn't translate into being fired up in support of Romney. THAT's his problem. The right wingers are almost certainly NOT going to go out in droves to cast a vote for a guy they dislike, but dislike less than the other guy. That being said, the right wingers will go out in droves for a Bachmann or a Santorum, but nobody else will.

I've said this a dozen times already, but this is why the Republican party is in such a mess right now. The candidates they are running are largely morons and the ones who aren't morons are largely disliked. There is a real rift within the party that will be tough to reconcile. In one group, you have the tea party element which is anti-intellectual, anti-government, and anti-most everything except saying no. In another group, you have religious evangelicals (some of whom are also in the tea party group). In another group, you have national security conservatives (though this block is losing influence quickly), and lastly you have your economic conservatives. Republicans have been successful in the past because they were able (from Reagan on) to cobble those groups together (pre tea party) by convincing the evangelicals that their needs would be met if they supported the national security/economic group. Then Bush came into office and killed off the conservative economic group and focused almost exclusively on national security. The economic conservatives were left wandering as were evangelicals. The tea party siphoned off some of each group (and added others) but their radicalism dominated every other group.

So which candidate today can bring the groups together to win? Romney is the only one who can make even a mild attempt at it, but he necessarily will lose substantial support from the tea party group and the evangelicals (while losing less from the national security group and attracting those in the economics group). That's not all that different from McCain's support demographics in 2008 (just flip national security and economics).

I think politics is similar to religion and tribalism is very strong. In a primary those cleavages you mention are more obvious. To proclaim 4 days before the Iowa Caucaus that they are so deep they cannot be overcome is your liberal premature ejaculation for the day - as a BYU grad I am sure you visited Eliza's dad's Bear Lake Cabin so it is in your upbringing. Despite you being a french loving leftie, you and I still share a pleasant love of deep cleavages. By about March it will be obvious that the fiscal conservatives are providing answers to our most pressing concerns and the rest will fall in line. By April the GOP will be For The Strength of Youth compliant with no more cleavage showing. It will be a sad day!

[Viking]

This is the real shame of the Obama presidency. The man could have really made a difference and instead he played Chicago politics and nothing got done.

I'd say by the time of Porkulus, he'd lost his limousine liberal crowd entirely. By the end of 2009, his core liberal crowd began to wane.

What a shame. We hoped he might be the spark the country needed but in the end he did far more damage to the economy. Porkulus, healthcare, anti-biz rhetoric.

If it weren't for the fact this nation is a bunch of reality-tv watching ninnies that have accepted less than mediocrity as the norm, he'd truly be Carter part Deux but instead he has a chance by simple economic inertia alone.

God help us.

[byu71]

Is it the tax policy or the ideological chrony capitalism such as his green jobs revolution?

Because if it is the tax policy, inasmuch as the rich having to pay more, they have to realize that everyone is going to eventually have to pay more and everyone includes them. Now if it is class warfare "fair share" rhetoric certainly they can't believe that is going to kead anywhere. Republicans won't allow it, but unfortunately when they have had some opportunities to bend to fix the debt issue they have shown to be just as inflexible.

It isn't one thing but a pattern, whether perceived or real. I don't see them doing a Glen Beck, selling everyting, buying gold and stocking up on food and guns in the Mountains.

They just want a large percentage of their money very, very safe and very very liquid so that if Beck is right, they will be OK.

What makes them think Beck could possibly be right. Watching Obama speak. Class warfare ahoy. Labor Unions fire up yer engines. Everybody gets to vote. Not only do you not have to prove you aren't an idiot, you don't even have to prove the name you use is actually yours. Of course the claim that lack of "regulations" is what caused the financial crisis gets entreprenuers thinking where are they going to take this beyond just financial institutions.

I mean if a small businessman builds a company through his own time and financial risk. If others financially risked along with him. Now they have a 400 employ work force paying SE taxes, health care, matching 401K, etc., at what point does the government come along and say, "you make so much and have so much, we want this additional amount to go to us to give to those who didn't build a business". After all the guy was lucky and the guy who chose to be a street organizer wasn't.

[calicoug]

I think politics is similar to religion and tribalism is very strong. In a primary those cleavages you mention are more obvious. To proclaim 4 days before the Iowa Caucaus that they are so deep they cannot be overcome is your liberal premature ejaculation for the day - as a BYU grad I am sure you visited Eliza's dad's Bear Lake Cabin so it is in your upbringing. Despite you being a french loving leftie, you and I still share a pleasant love of deep cleavages. By about March it will be obvious that the fiscal conservatives are providing answers to our most pressing concerns and the rest will fall in line. By April the GOP will be For The Strength of Youth compliant with no more cleavage showing. It will be a sad day!

haha! I always enjoy your posts.

But no, I have not said they cannot be overcome. That's only what you have said I have said.