GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 3

[INDY500]

I'm feeling a tremor in the force.

 

[2861U2]

So I must admit that I haven't been paying much attention lately...

...so does Newt actually have a chance to win the nomination?

I don't think so. InTrade currently gives it to Romney at 89%.

Here's how I think it plays out. Romney wins Florida, probably by double-digits. In February Gingrich suffers because there is only one debate, and the states voting are Nevada, Maine, Colorado, Arizona, Minnesota, Michigan- all states where Romney either won last time or has a good lead in the polls this time.

Gingrich will probably win a few states on Super Tuesday (Oklahoma, Georgia, a couple others), but Romney essentially takes the day. Once we hit April the remaining states become winner-take-all in terms of the delegates, and most of the remaining states favor Romney. Because Gingrich is a punk, the nomination probably doesn't get settled until April sometime. Actually, looking at the calendar, April 24 has 5 states voting, all in the northeast, including delegate-rich New York and Pennsylvania. That may be the end of it.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Ron Paul actually won the GOP straw poll here, but that's probably meaningless because not everyone voted in that. I suspect if Newt is still around he might win Okla, but i hope not.

 

[Irvine511]

I don't think so. InTrade currently gives it to Romney at 89%.

Here's how I think it plays out. Romney wins Florida, probably by double-digits. In February Gingrich suffers because there is only one debate, and the states voting are Nevada, Maine, Colorado, Arizona, Minnesota, Michigan- all states where Romney either won last time or has a good lead in the polls this time.

Gingrich will probably win a few states on Super Tuesday (Oklahoma, Georgia, a couple others), but Romney essentially takes the day. Once we hit April the remaining states become winner-take-all in terms of the delegates, and most of the remaining states favor Romney. Because Gingrich is a punk, the nomination probably doesn't get settled until April sometime. Actually, looking at the calendar, April 24 has 5 states voting, all in the northeast, including delegate-rich New York and Pennsylvania. That may be the end of it.

this is probably about right. but n00t has risen from the dead twice, and this is what we were saying before South Carolina.

it's going to be interesting to see how far his narcissism will take him.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

People (in the Republican base) don't like Mitt because they know he's only telling them what they want to hear.

Couldn't the same be said about the other GOP candidates, save for Ron Paul? They're all about as patronizing as can be, really.

I recommend the book Republic, Lost for much more on this matter. I've been saying it for decades. It is categorically NOT a partisan or Left/Right issue.

I've heard about that book, it does indeed sound like it'd be worth a look.

I'm fully in agreement with anitram about strict anti-lobbying laws. I'm glad this issue's actually getting some discussion, but I'd be thrilled to see it be part of the mainstream national conversation more often.

I also like that 'New Yorker' cover. Ain't that the truth.

 

[2861U2]

Swing States poll: Romney and Obama tied; Gingrich trails – USATODAY.com

Obama 47%, Romney 48%
Obama 54%, Gingrich 40%
Obama 50%, Paul 43%
Obama 51%, Santorum 44%

WASHINGTON – Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney essentially ties Barack Obama in the nation's key battlegrounds, a USA TODAY/Gallup Swing States survey finds, while rival Newt Gingrich now trails the president by a decisive 14 percentage points.

The poll of the dozen states likely to determine the outcome of November's election addresses the electability argument that has driven many Republicans: Which GOP contender has the best chance of denying Obama a second term?

The Swing States survey focuses on the nation's most competitive battlegrounds: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

But no, conservatives. Let's go with Newt.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm feeling a tremor in the force.

not going to happen -- Romney *is* the establishment candidate, and it's "his turn." you people are all about authority, hierarchy, order, and falling in line. that's what will happen behind Mittens.

your only hope for Daniels is for a n00t surge.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Interesting to imagine this with Santorum gone. I have no idea where Paul voters will go when he drops out, but presumably the vast majority of Santorum voters would go to Gingrich. The Not Romney vote still wins in a landslide, and if Santorum had dropped out post South Carolina, presumably Gingrich would have a pretty healthy lead in Florida? Amazing.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

He's no longer pro abortion choice. Maybe he was at one point (when he was running for MA gov), with Mitt you never know and it's all kind of a jumbled muddled mess. Don't think he's pro gun control or tax increase either.


By Alex Moe, NBC News

LADY LAKE, Florida– As the race in Florida draws to a close, Newt Gingrich is trying to draw a much sharper contrast between himself and his “liberal” GOP rival Mitt Romney.

“I am, in fact, the legitimate heir of the Reagan movement, not some liberal from Massachusetts,” Gingrich told the several thousand-person crowd at The Villages, a retirement community outside of Orlando.

In the past, the former House speaker always referred to Romney as a “Massachusetts moderate,” but early Sunday Gingrich began labeling the former Massachusetts governor as a “liberal” instead.

“This party is not going to nominate somebody who is a pro-abortion, pro gun control, pro tax increase liberal,” Gingrich told reporters about Romney outside Idlewild Baptist Church after attending services there this morning.

 

[Irvine511]

i can't think of any figure in public life who's quite as self-aggrandizing as Gingrich.

he makes Sarah Palin look modest.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Oh, yeah, the guy who rails against the stimulus, then uses it to balance his state's budget. What a fucking champ

I'm feeling a tremor in the force.

 

[U2DMfan]

Couldn't the same be said about the other GOP candidates, save for Ron Paul? They're all about as patronizing as can be, really.

Not Santorum, he's the real deal - which is why he is unelectable. And I think Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain were fairly sincere as well.

Sure, to some extent or another, all Presidential candidates, including Obama and HR Clinton are/were patronizing. Gingrich always has been about a lot of different ideas all over the map.

But there is a special section reserved for Romney when it comes to contorting oneself to make oneself digestible to the base. Not even McCain took it that far.

The truth is, as far as the GOP goes, this all about the myth of Reaganism.
Big Government Republicans masking themselves as fiscal conservatives.
The base wants a 'Reaganite' and don't realize that both Romney and Gingrich - as well as Santorum - are all Bush/Reagan Big Government Republicans. In other words, they only see Reagan as the myth, much like liberals see Clinton, who was about the most fiscally conservative President of the last 50 years.

This is why, last Fall, I thought Rick Perry would sail to the nomination. He sure seemed to be the one guy that could sell real fiscal conservatism. But who could have guessed he would have been so terrible of a candidate?

So that's what it is...a charade. And this is why the base is disgruntled, they are (more or less - the majority) getting wise to it. But they'll swallow Romney if it means beating Obama.

Everyone wants Big Government, because slashing programs - more than just about anything - can cost elections. This is why the Bush congress, for six years, cut taxes and didn't cut spending. They don't really believe what they are saying, they are too afraid to lose an election...which circles back around to term limits

 

[Irvine511]

Oh, yeah, the guy who rails against the stimulus, then uses it to balance his state's budget. What a fucking champ

don't forget -- he was the genius who thought the Iraq War would cost between $50-80bn.

lolz.

 

[Irvine511]

just to further an earlier point:

"The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message. The code words in this game are 'entitlement society' — as used by Mitt Romney — and 'poor work ethic' and 'food stamp president' — as used by Newt Gingrich. References to a lack of respect for the 'Founding Fathers' and the 'Constitution' also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core 'old-fashioned American values,'" - Juan Williams, not backing down from the question he posed to Newt Gingrich.

of course, this is a black man saying this, so i'm sure he sees race in everything.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Not Santorum, he's the real deal - which is why he is unelectable. And I think Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain were fairly sincere as well.

Santorum, I agree, I think genuinely believes everything he says (unfortunately). Maybe Bachmann, too, in some respects. Course, in her case, it's hard to tell, because she always looked/sounded too batshit crazy anytime she talked to be certain.

But Perry and Cain? They may be sincere in some areas, but I think they knew full well the snow game, too.

And even if these candidates are sincere in their personal beliefs, they know exactly the right kind of outlandish promises to make to their base, the kind I think they know full well they'd never be able to keep or actually be able to go through with if they got into office (unless they're truly THAT delusional), and they know the right buzzwords to say to get their base fired up.

Like you said, yes, this happens with all politicians on all sides, certainly no argument there. But I think the GOP has a special knack for it.

But there is a special section reserved for Romney when it comes to contorting oneself to make oneself digestible to the base. Not even McCain took it that far.

Oh, certainly, Romney's a total sham in that regard. Again, he's all slick style, I've yet to see any sort of substance show up.

McCain, I think, just fell into that "grumpy old person" scenario. Not to sound stereotypical, but I truly think that's what happened.

The truth is, as far as the GOP goes, this all about the myth of Reaganism.
Big Government Republicans masking themselves as fiscal conservatives.
The base wants a 'Reaganite' and don't realize that both Romney and Gingrich - as well as Santorum - are all Bush/Reagan Big Government Republicans. In other words, they only see Reagan as the myth, much like liberals see Clinton, who was about the most fiscally conservative President of the last 50 years.

Exactly. Be it fiscally or socially, the government's going to increase in one area or another, this is a fact. Want to have a stronger military presence? Government interference. Want to change the way schools are run? Government interference. Social conservatives want to have constitutional amendments regarding issues like abortion or marriage? Big government interference. Want to fix the welfare system and economy. Government interference. And so on and so on. For one party or another to pretend to be solely about small federal government interaction is laughable-you're all going to involve the federal government heavily in an issue somewhere down the line.

This is why, last Fall, I thought Rick Perry would sail to the nomination. He sure seemed to be the one guy that could sell real fiscal conservatism. But who could have guessed he would have been so terrible of a candidate?

We should've talked to the people of Texas, it seems, from what I've heard, they had quite a few complaints with the guy prior to him making a run for the presidency.

This is further proof why people need to really delve deeper into the politicians running. Sure, you might like their ideas on one issue here or there, but they could totally suck in other areas, and that one line of agreement won't be enough to prove they're truly worthy of a position in government.

So that's what it is...a charade. And this is why the base is disgruntled, they are (more or less - the majority) getting wise to it. But they'll swallow Romney if it means beating Obama.

I'm glad they're getting wise to it, but do they honestly realize that the non-Romney options they're desperately clawing at aren't any better? That those people will almost assuredly guarantee a second Obama term, the very thing they do not want?

Everyone wants Big Government, because slashing programs - more than just about anything - can cost elections. This is why the Bush congress, for six years, cut taxes and didn't cut spending. They don't really believe what they are saying, they are too afraid to lose an election...which circles back around to term limits

Yep. If it's your guy in power, big government's okay. If it's the opposite party in power, big government is bad. That's basically what it comes down to for a lot of people.

Unfortunately for the Bush-style conservatives, that way of doing things is still likely to cost them elections. Because they forget that yes, it's nice to cater to one's base, but if that base is so off with what the rest of the country believes on various issues, that base isn't going to be enough to rescue them come election time.

It's the sort of thing that both saves and hurts the Democrats. They don't cater to their base all the time, thus allowing independents and, occasionally, conservatives to support them and get them more votes...

...but then not catering to the base naturally upsets said base, and they can lose a lot of major support there, too. It's a very strange dance politicians must do.

 

[Caleb8844]

just to further an earlier point:

"The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message. The code words in this game are 'entitlement society' — as used by Mitt Romney — and 'poor work ethic' and 'food stamp president' — as used by Newt Gingrich. References to a lack of respect for the 'Founding Fathers' and the 'Constitution' also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core 'old-fashioned American values,'" - Juan Williams, not backing down from the question he posed to Newt Gingrich.



of course, this is a black man saying this, so i'm sure he sees race in everything.

So what he and you are saying is that only minorities have poor work ethic, use food stamps, and abuse entitlements? Cuz that's what I'm hearing.

 

[2861U2]

Prediction for Florida

Romney- 41%
Gingrich- 33%
Santorum- 16%
Paul- 8%

 

[anitram]

Pleased with his headway, Norquist is now mapping out how he can ensure further anti-tax victories by securing Republican majorities. In an interview with the National Journal, he mused that a GOP mandate would obviously enact an extension of the Bush tax cuts, work to maintain a repatriation holiday for corporate profits, and even pass House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan that jeopardizes Medicare. But when asked what Republicans should do if faced with a Democratic majority that won’t keep the tax cuts, Norquist had a simple answer: “impeach” Obama.

NJ: What if the Democrats still have control? What’s your scenario then?

NORQUIST: Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach. The last year, he’s gone into this huddle where he does everything by executive order. He’s made no effort to work with Congress.

This is why you can't work with the Republicans.

 

[BVS]

So what he and you are saying is that only minorities have poor work ethic, use food stamps, and abuse entitlements? Cuz that's what I'm hearing.

When you say any of those words in front of a tea party crowd they will conjure up a mental image, I bet you a hundred dollars that 99% don't imagine a white person.

 

[Irvine511]

So what he and you are saying is that only minorities have poor work ethic, use food stamps, and abuse entitlements? Cuz that's what I'm hearing.

That's what Newt is saying because that's what will get some of the GOP base to vote for him.

 

[PhilsFan]

McCain, I think, just fell into that "grumpy old person" scenario. Not to sound stereotypical, but I truly think that's what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm4uv1_m0kE

The moment he became beyond parody.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I remember that.

Watching McCain throughout 2008 had its amusing moments, but it truly was some sad stuff as well.

 

[PhilsFan]

He went from someone I respected to a piece of shit in just a few months. I've been saying it for years: that campaign destroyed John McCain as we knew him.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Maybe leave the singing to the President? Yeah, Obama is a better singer. They should just have a sing off to decide it all.

Mitt Romney Singing | America The Beautiful | Video | Mediaite

 

[corianderstem]

Watching McCain throughout 2008 had its amusing moments,

I knew there was a reason I'd been keeping these handy!

 

[coolian2]

i'm sure i didn't just read an article that said gingrich was somewhat seriously suggesting illegally claiming the moon as a us state and setting up a space outpost there? did i sleep really late and wake up on april 1st?

i suppose it would be cheaper than invading iran.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

He actually did suggest that, yes.

Fiscal conservatism, woo .

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

This is why you can't work with the Republicans.

Why is it they want to impeach Obama? On what grounds...i understand the Republicans want to defeat him but impeachment is a whole other animal.

 

[INDY500]

That's what Newt is saying because that's what will get some of the GOP base to vote for him.

Here's what Newt literally was saying as opposed to what hear.

“I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness and if that makes liberals unhappy I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job…learn how to get a better job…and learn some day own the job.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrj_iFsf8-o

I know, outrageous and racially charged. You want some code-words? How about these:

"help the poor" = provide opportunity for a better life and the dignity of a job.

"get a better job" = advance in a free economy as far as your talent and initiative will take you.

"own the job" = become an evil 1%er and pass on to your grandchildren the promise of the American Dream.

That's what I hear.

 

[INDY500]

just to further an earlier point:

"References to a lack of respect for the 'Founding Fathers' and the 'Constitution' also make certain ears perk up..."

really? How silly are y'all going to get with this?