« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Romney’s 10 – 10 – 10 plan is working

By: chrysostom15 (Diary)  |  December 21st, 2011 at 12:16 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Mitt Romney lost in 2008 to Mike Huckabee because Brownback dropped out.  With Brownback gone, his supporters went to Huckabee and Huckabee won the support of religious conservatives and thus the state.

Of course a number of religious conservatives back Newt, Paul, and Romney.  However, 3 candidates are now staking their campaigns on the support of religious conservatives:  Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry.  These 3 campaigns have gone all-out for religious conservatives and combined have enough support to win Iowa.  Seperate, however, they fall short.

For the Iowa Straw Poll, Bachmann won because Santorum was lower in the polls and Perry was not in the race.  Were Perry in the race when the straw poll took place, Bachmann would not have won… Paul would have.

For all the changes in Iowa polling, things have not changed.  The combined support of Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry is the same as it was at the time of th staw poll.  It is just divided into 3 candidates.  This has been Romney’s plan, and it is working.

The key question that Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry face is can they win supporters from one or both of the other candidates?  The answer thus far has been no.  2 of those 3 candidates will not agree to drop-out and support the other prior to Iowa.  Bachmann and Santorum have no means to lauch attacks on the other two to eliminate them from the race.  Perry’s targetting all his add money on Gingrich.  Simply put, they will likely each get about 10% for the Caucus.  A sort of mutually-assured-destruction; each staying in the race and taking the supports the other needs to win.

Romney’s next line of attack was destorying Gingrich, which appears to be going well enough for Romney that Paul is now ahead in Iowa.

So, a win by Paul, followed by a win by Romney in NH….the race is looking good for Romney.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • znjs

    The current system just doesn’t work.

  • Change Jar Conservative

    We are going to get Romney because Bachmann / Santorum remain in though neither has a chance to win.

    • acat

      we would not – once again – be divided going into the election.

      This is giving my Cassandra Complex a bit of a swelled head.

      Mew

      • heraklios

        She has performed as well in the polls and is a superior debater, plus she is a woman, which might throw a huge wildcard/unknown intot he General Election to shake up a contest that isn’t looking so good for us right now.

        • clowngirl

          And she really doesn’t yet.

        • acat

          Taken his presidential war chest, moved it to a Senate war chest, and gone after Casey Junior in PA.

          Dr. Bob and Guzzardi assure me he couldn’t win but .. he could run a well-funded campaign in a possible tsunami year, and .. well, a lot would depend on who else is running for the GOP Senate nom in Penna.

          If you’re saying Perry should exit because he performed poorly in two gotcha Q&A sessions with hostile media, I have to disagree. He’s got the resume and he’s shown – in later gotcha Q&A sessions – that he can hold his own.

          In pure numbers terms, the Texas primary is in early March, it elects the second largest pool of delegates of any State, and as a relatively popular governor he should have home field advantage. Bachmann can try to say the same about Minnesota (in February but a “non-binding caucus”) but it’s a harder sell for a smaller prize. Santorum can’t say the same as Pennsylvania is well after “Super Tuesday” which, historically, has provided a very clear indication of who the nominee is.

          Mew

    • Common_Cents

      and pursue a VP spot. ooops. LOL

  • Common_Cents

    But then the all in pile on happened on Gingrich by all sides. Gingrich was strong going into even making Newt Hampshire close, a big blow to Romney.

    I didn’t understand why the anti Romney’s went after Gingrich until AFTER Romney was knocked down much further after NH, SC, FL. Gingrich was providing an opening for Perry, Bachmann, Santorum etc…

    but now Ron Paul got pumped instead just before caucuses.

    Unforced errors by campaigns.

    • hls87

      or have any other significant impact on the race. His candidacy was always a delusional, onanistic exercise. Besides, it seems unlikely that anyone has to take Romney down. The field will winnow down to the candidates who meet the traditional criteria of presidential seriousness — Romney and Perry. Iowa will probably do most of the winnowing, but if it doesn’t SC will. Once all the noise is out of the race and voters focus on the signal, I doubt Romney can compete, but maybe voters will warm to Mitt after all.

      The angst over Santorum and Bachmann splitting up conservative votes is overblown. Republicans in Iowa and beyond are capable of separating the contenders from the pretenders. Michelle and Rick S. will drop by the wayside soon enough.

      • clowngirl

        So I can’t agree with that part of what you said

        Tend to think Romney will have more difficulty once the field narrows too, however I think Ron Paul could cause problems – there’s a theory that if he wins Iowa Republicans might coalesce around Romney to some extent as the lesser evil.

        Ron Paul also prevents the field from narrowing down to 2 candidates.

        • hls87

          was a Democrat living in a bubble. The GOP only had to outperform historical norms for the opposition in an off-year by a bit to take the House that year. They had been the majority in living memory and the Dems had set them up nicely for the win. Taking the House in ’94 wasn’t a personal victory for Gingrich. It was more of a loss for Clinton and it was a perfectly normal political event.

          If Newt were to make a serious run for the White House it would be utterly unprecedented. When the top line on your political resume reads “Speaker of the House” you aren’t in the presidential game. Voters follow long-established patterns when they pick candidates for President. Service in House leadership isn’t disqualifying, but it doesn’t get you in the game. Even if any former Speaker could transcend that barrier, Newt can’t. The first former Speaker to make waves in a presidential race isn’t going to be an ideologically androgenous, thrice married blowhard who got fired by the conservatives in his own caucus and then spent 13 years influence peddling.

          Newt’s just wasting everybody’s time in an effort to stay relevant. It’s a pathetic spectacle and it won’t go on much longer.

          • Scope

            which was probably as unpopular as Obamacare. Thankfully she failed with her push toward socialized medicine. Wasn’t that the time period when Newt was in favor of an individual mandate? It would make sense that the unpopularity of Hillaycare had much to do with the Republicans taking over the House in 1994, yet it is hardly ever mentioned.

          • clowngirl

            And Newt envisioned Republicans taking the House long before 94.

    • bzip

      “Gingrich was well on his way to taking Romney down” until the truth started coming out about Newt.

      You do realize that Perry made more punched on Romney than Newt ever had done. You do realize Newt has caused an opening for Ron Paul since Newt is so well characterized in ads these days. Newt the perfect punching bag because of his massive baggage.

      So you would feel better if the truth wasn’t known about Newt or it was a secret until Oct 2012?

      You would feel better if the rest of the American people were lied to, fooled into thinking something else about Newt other than the truth?

      • Common_Cents

        :)

        • jakeofalltrades

          in other news, dog bites man.

          • retire05

            he simply pointed out that most of Newt’s baggage is personal, not professional. And he also pointed out that there have been other presidents who were elected inspite of their personal baggage (JFK has his keep secret due to a fawning media). Now, did I get the impression that Sowell is not bowled over with Mitt’s radiance? Yes.

            When someone endorses a candidate, they say “and that is why I am endorsing So Andso.”

            So don’t get your Hanes all in a wad thinking Newt got Sowell’s stamp of approval. He didn’t.

      • clowngirl

        So it’s not a question of “the truth coming out” it’s a question of smears inundating people 24/7.

        Incidentally, the National Review article that said Newt wasn’t fit for consideration also took about 2 sentences to dismiss Perry.

        That isn’t “truth”. It’s trashing and devaluing 2 good candidates.

        It’s losing all sense of proportion – dismissing huge acheivements and obsessing on and enlarging every flaw. Putting the worst interpretation on things.

        Like when Perry gave an animated speech in NH and there all these articles speculating that he may have been drunk…

        If it were Perry who looked poised to win Iowa a week it two ago the knives would’ve come out for him too…

        • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

          anybody that really thinks Newt got paid 30,000 an hour to give advice that the company was not going to even use needs to think real hard about how gullible they are. Now when is it good to listen to anything the Washington post says, they want Obama to face Newt because they know that means Obama is a sure thing next years.

          • clowngirl

            Newt wasn’t paid $30,000 an hour – some reporter said that as a joke and the Romney PAC repeated it as if it were fact.

          • Scope

            Newt was paid $1.6 million, and said himself he consulted them about an hour per month for a decade. Do the math. It works out to about $30,000 per hour. It’s not a lie.

          • clowngirl

            1. If Newt said he consulted “about” an hour a month, then he wasn’t keeping track of every minute and wasn’t billing by the hour.

            2. The $1.6 million was to his whole company – not just him personally.

            That part of the ad *was* deemed a lie by the Washington Post fact checker. The WaPo hasn’t seemed especially pro-Newt.

          • Scope

            with his retort to Romney concerning Freddie Mac. Romney said Gingrich should give the money back to Freddie Mac that he made while working for them. Gingrich retorted that Romney should give back all the money from the companies that he bankrupted and all of the employees that were laid off as a result. By your logic then Romney doesn’t owe anyone anything, regardless of what Gingrich says, as it was Bain that set the policies and earned the money, not Romney personally.

        • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

          and he suffered for it. Now he is tryion gto come back. Newt has the problem that when conservatives tried to balance the budget in the 90′s he stood in the way, and he got mad because they did not vote with him, which is odd because Newt was voting to tare some of his own contract with America up, but now he wants us to except that he is different.

          • clowngirl

            N/t

          • Dave_A

            The ‘Surplus’ was part accounting games, part tech bubble, part Clinton tax hikes & part the gutting of the military in the early 90s…

            The price paid wasn’t worth the supposed benefit….

    • clowngirl

      You questioned why the candidates didn’t wait till Newt took out Romney.

      I’m guessing 5 reasons:

      1. If Newt took down Romney by winning Iowa, and New Hampshire he’d be well positioned to run the table in the early primary states (especially given his strength in South Carolina and Florida) and be extremely difficult to stop.

      2. For Bachmann and Santorum, Iowa is their only shot- if they don’t finish in the top three (or maybe a close forth) there’s no going forward.

      3. Newt’s liabilities are likely to hit him a lot harder in Iowa than in most other states.

      4. They figure it would be easier to attract Newt’s supporters than Romney’s.

      5. The other candidates probably don’t see themselves as committed to the not-Romney effort. They don’t want to sacrifice their chance to accomplish whatever they’re aiming for in this primary. (it’s hard to believe Michelle Bachmann or Ron Paul really think they can win the Presidency)

      I’m hopeful that Newt will still manage to pull out a win…

      • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

        …consdiering that Perry is the only candidate to effectively get under Romney’s skin twice? Please improve your evidentiary skills and try to avoid beclowning your responses with paralogic, as above. That said, I agree with you about Bachmann and Santorum–for them it’s Iowa or bust. Probably bust.

        • clowngirl

          I do think he wants to see Romney beaten, and I think he intends to beat him. I don’t think he would sacrifice his candidacy to help another candidate beat Romney though ( nor should he)

          I don’t quite agree with you about Perry being the only candidate to get under Romney’s skin (though I do commend him for doing so TWICE ) I’d say Newt forced an error in the whole back and forth about Romney’s lying Super PAC.

          He called out Romney on a totally dishonest ad and Romney AFAIK never disputed the dishonesty. First he disingenuously said he had no control over what they did. Then he said hey if Newt can’t take the heat…

          Big Mistake for 3 reasons:

          1. He let the mask slip and showed his true colors. Seeing his ruthless willingness to lie and win ugly, it’s all too easy to imagine him as an immoral corporate raider.

          2. Newt has been under an unbelievable number of attacks – it’s hard to imagine it will get much worse during the general election. Newt’s not in the kitchen, he’s been thrown into the stove – and he’s staying fairly positive and is still in first place (or tied for it) in some polls. Romney, on the other hand has had very little heat.

          He avoided the media till Newt was leading by double digits and then complained that Fox News was too rough on him!

          And does Romney really want to draw elections between the conditions during the primary season and likely general election conditions?? Really?

          Romney’s benefitted from favorable media, and a huge spending advantage – in the general election the situation would be reversed. The MSM will carry Obama just as much as they can and try to DESTROY him.

          Not to mention his baggage has barely been touched, and he’s got the advantage of being the establishment candidate – who has the “moderate/electability” vote pretty much to himself while 5 candidates compete for the rest – and he STILL has to resort to lies.

          Point being: in attacking Newt on readiness to “take the heat” he’s reminding people of Newt’s strengths – his ability to take extraordinary amounts of heat as Speaker and still push forward to balance the budget and pursue entitlement reform. And he reminds people he himself hasn’t been tested at that level.

          3. He gives Newt an opening to hit back, hard, and with impunity.

          • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

            ….witness his fall in the polls (predictably) upon dealing with the vetting about his questionable record. I think as far as Romney’s corruption and Newt’s, neither of it was entirely in the private sector, but Romney’s was probably a little less corrupt than Newt’s, so it’s a wash. And the complaining going on here from Newtrons about the vetting process is also predictable. No one has been able to stay on top–the minute someone is on top the knives come out and they get served up like a moderator’s liver at a Newt debate with fava beans and chiante. Life’s not fair.

            And I agree with you that Perry isn’t going to drop out to support someone else. He shouldn’t have to. Bachmann and Santorum are probably due to drop out first, and after that Perry should have enough support to make it a fierce race with Newt, Paul, and Romney. Then again, unless Newt gets a lot of momentum and a lot of money, he doesn’t really have the operation to sustain a very long campaign himself.

          • clowngirl

            It’s due to millions of dollars in attack ads in a relatively small state, many of which aren’t true. And to important media figures openly trying to destroy Newt’s campaign.

            (Look, for e.g., at that NRO article “winnowing the field” it’s not usual for a conservative publication to pronounce more than half of the field unfit to be even considered. )

            Newt has made the point that during this slew of attacks, Obama’s numbers are going up…

          • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

            Vetting is negative attacks in debates and advertising probing and attacking weaknesses. No, it’s not fair, but that’s what it is. And I agree that Obama’s numbers are temporarily going up right now because of all the attacks. People have short attention spans and short memories. Obama’s numbers will decline once the Republicans have hopefully chosen a resolute outsider Conservative with sound executive experience *coughs* and the negative ads and focus on Obama’s sorry record begins. This will come in time, grasshopper. Until then, we have an intramural squabble on who is our best standard bearer. Don’t take it personally. I try not to.

          • circlegranch

            and again, all we’ve heard is about his marvelous ability to debate but look at the times he’s been challenged in debates—he actually does a pretty good Obama imitation: “uh, uh, uh,…in, in, in, my view…” and his instinct to lay his hands on other people that are saying things he doesn’t want said. The nervous laugh and sweaty brow are very telling. Better to have one’s brain just freeze up and say nothing than to babble and stutter and start grabbing people.

            He’s talking a good game about Newt not being able to take the heat but he doesn’t do much better in all reality. Maybe its time to re-adjust our measure of competence and level of electibility off of debate performances and onto something real and tangible: ability to stand up to Obama and tell him man to man where he’s failed and where others, especially our candidate, has succeeded in spite of O’s agenda to tear down the country and plunge us into financial ruin.

            Mitt won’t call Obama a socialist and Newt says its time to be civil and play nice. Middle America is hoppin’ mad and wants something done. In observing what’s happened in Congress in the past several days shows clearly that Mitch McConnell and others that have overstayed their welcome and drained our pockets for too long need to go and be replaced by practical ‘outsider’ business people that understand how to negotiate and win and how to muscle through media influence and misinformation. We see where playing nice gets us and the report released yesterday showing that based on the failed socialist take-over of GM, every Chevy Volt has cost us $250,000.

            Had enough? I don’t know anybody that wants civil and polite Washington conversation anymore because everytime we hear it, we’re getting played one way or another. The system (and the people that perennially preside over it) is broke, its doesn’t work and we need tough-minded leadership and strong rhetoric to start the clean up.

          • clowngirl

            Actually, come to think of it, Santorum got Romney rattled too…

          • Common_Cents

            “BETHLEHEM, N.H. (AP) ? Mitt Romney is telling The Associated Press that he won’t agree to debate Newt Gingrich one on one.

            The former Massachusetts governor says in an AP interview that he’s not declining his rival’s debate challenge because he’s afraid to square off against Gingrich, as the former House speaker has implied. Rather, Romney says he doesn’t want to define the contest as a “two-man race.” And he says that debating Gingrich alone would be disrespectful to other candidates.

            Romney also is continuing to distance himself from the Washington standoff over the payroll tax-cut extension. He suggests it’s not the place of presidential candidates to weigh in. ” -AP

            Romney chickens out on facing Gingrich, preferring to hide behind his ads and surrogates. And people want THIS pansy to face obama?

            Romney can’t even weigh in on the payroll tax issue. Is this above his pay grade too?

            Can the man make ANY decision? FAIL.

          • Common_Cents

            It seems his attack ads define the race as a “2 man race”.

            Yet, he can’t even man up and face Gingrich. Pathetic.

        • clowngirl

          But I don’t think he’s willing to drop out to help another candidate beat Romney.

          Nor should he at this point.

          Michelle Bachman dropping out and endorsing Perry would be nice but I’m sure she doesn’t see it that way. She probably sees herself winning Iowa, regardless what the polls say.

          When I said the other candidates aren’t committed to “not Romney” I didn’t mean it as an insult. It’s two early to expect people to drop out to consolidate the vote.

          By south Carolina the field should be narrower…

      • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

        after saying at first that it was just part of the process. When Perry had his troubles, Newt said on Fox that Perry was very smart, but that the process for running for president is tough, and not everyone is built for it. Well Newt stop being a baby and fight. There are so many people who do not even care about the truth, I mean he does have supporters who still try to say he was not a lobbyist even though logic tell us that no caompany is paying Newt to be a historian, he knows a lot, but for the money they paid him they could have gotten a team of the best in the world. He maid NBA money, they make 20,000 a game sometimes, and Newt said he made 30,000 an hour. That is about the dumbest thing Ive ever heard. I cannot believe people fall of this stuff.

        • clowngirl

          He wasn’t lobbying for Freddie Mac or anyone else.

          • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

            …asking them to support Medicare Part D, yet another unsustainable entitlement on top of our existing massive entitlement burden he wasn’t lobbying either, even though he and his “think tank” were being paid handsomely by health companies that profited from it? A hooker doesn’t have to register to be a prostitute, and neither does a lobbyist. Both being a prostitute and a lobbyist are about what you do, not how you’re registered.

          • clowngirl

            If he’d done it, I would think dozens of people would be coming forward.

          • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

            Not necessarily–Gingrich is already engaging in questionable financial behavior in the race, and so let’s give it some time to percolate and reach the public attention.

        • circlegranch

          and said nothing. It was Perry that eventually had to mention at a debate that Newt wrote the intro to Perry’s book, “Fed Up”! Apparently Newt only wants civility and fair play applied to him. Bachmann has been the same way….don’t dare point any fingers at me, but I get to trash YOU every time I’m in front of a microphone.

          Romney’s running his Obama’s Hell’s Kitchen heat thing in the ground but he is right. If Newt can’t take the normal vetting process here then he won’t survive on debate skill alone.

          the IA State Univ poll has Perry inching up a bit. Maybe the flack about Ron Paul will impact the final tally? MSNBC is sure that as Paul support fades, it’ll go to Newt or Mitt. Beware the dark horse that no one suspects here!

          Regarding endorsements, I’d noted here a few days ago that one of Mitt’s rascally PAC’s (that he now wants to be dissolved) had donated about $20,000 to the re-election of IA Gov. Terry Branstad. He has come out and said a 2nd place finish in IA for Mitt will position him well for NH and that we should stay focused on the ‘top tier’. Money talks, Mitt, and it buys endorsements and close-to-endorsements. You better hold off trashing those PAC’s for now………………….

          • romansdaughter

            Willard right now. I just think there is something shady and dishonest about thinking about running for President and basically paying off all these people to endorse you when you are running for President. It is so sleazy to me. Maybe all the candidates do this??? But somehow that seems a bit dishonest to me. I mean if you can give up your principles for money what kind of person are you? I hope Rick Perry didn’t do this. Actually he probably didn’t since he didn’t even decide to run until June or July.

          • circlegranch

            This issue of these PAC’s being able to do the bidding of a candidate and rake in unlimited amounts of money is done by alot of candidates. Thanks to McCain-Feingold that’s the essence of our campaign finance laws now. It seems very disingenuous of Romney to now sit back and claim he doesn’t like the system when that very system has allowed him to garner alot of influential support from sitting politicians. One by one, they are trotting out now singing his praises and apparently think we idiots aren’t smart enough to research and see who has benefitted from Romney’s PAC’s and who hasn’t. They are also very strategically timed as far as when they announce their endorsements. Supposedly, the Romney campaign can’t communicate with the PAC’s (or risk going to the ‘big house’ as Mitt said yesterday on MSNBC) yet, as in the case of Nikki Haley’s endorsement, they do seem to roll out at very well appointed times. Newt was crowding Romney in NC and basicallly clobbering him with the tea party vote, so Gov. Haley decides to break her word and go ahead and endorse ahead of her state’s primary.

            Romney’s PAC’s have been working hard to raise money and position him for this race since he lost in ’08. Regarding the question of whether or not Perry participated in this way, I believe that answer would be ‘no’ because as a sitting governor, he would have been very restricted in that type of activity. As you note, since he didn’t even decide to run till this summer, I highly doubt we’d find that he was laying the groundwork for the past few years by donating to influential Republicans and tea party candidates with the expectation that they would endorse him down the road.

          • clowngirl

            And smearing a candidate is different from vetting.

            Newt has been cheerfully taking hard questions for weeks. In the last debate, when a moderator said ” you’re a bit of a target tonight” (or something like that ) Newt responded cheerfully “it goes along with being right here” ( in the center of the stage – in other words the front runner )he’s only started objecting when other candidates (specifically Romney started incessantly lying about him via super PACs.

            And I partly agree with your characterization about how candidates have risen and fallen but not really.

            Michelle Bachmann fell without any big media attack
            Rick Perry fell largely due to his own mistakes (amplified by the media, yes, but he bears a lot of the responsibility)
            Cain fell after a demonstrating conclusively he wasn’t ready to be President
            The sexual harassment thing would’nt have been a big deal if he had handled it competently.

            Newt is the only w hose numbers dropped only after millions of dollars in attack ads (some of which are outright lies) along with a determined effort by some influential media to destroy his candidacy.

            Another difference between Newt and the others, some polls still have him in first place, not in single digits.

  • circlegranch

    that maybe they jumped too soon. Credit should be handed to them, however, for even running Byron York’s article, “Romney Changes Stance on Iraqi Invasion” today.

    Apparently, prior to endorsing, the Examiner wasn’t aware that the big complaint with Romney amongst voters (other than his solid 20% of elitist GOP voters) is his tendency to flip and flop on issues depending on the political advantage of doing so.

    In his interview on Fox News Sunday this week, he wouldn’t give a definitive answer to Chris Wallace’s question as to whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. Yesterday, Romney found a solid position in talking with Chuck Todd on MSNBC and said ‘no’, we would not have invaded if we knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. (Didn’t we invade not just because we thought they had those weapons, but also because we believed Hussein was actively engaged in trying to obtain them?)

    York reports that in the ’08 campaign, Mr. Romney voiced solid support for the Iraq war. Welcome to the future; this is what the Romney administration will look like.

    • samcoastie

      When you read the article it actually shows clearly that Mitt’s stance has been consistent since 2007. My cynical side wonders if they wrote this article as a way to make people rethink the whole flip-flop thing. Could it have been written to plant the thought “if this flip flop charge is wrong, maybe the other ones are…..”

      If read as a sincere effort at expressing rational thought the article is a real head scratcher. All the evidence laid out in the article indicates Romney has had a consistent stance.

      • acat

        I’d like to see a position that Willard hasn’t waffled. Other than the sun coming up in the east, the sky being blue, and Massachusetts having the right to mandate the purchasing of health insurance as a requirement for citizenship…

        Mew

    • samcoastie

      When you read the article it actually shows clearly that Mitt’s stance has been consistent since 2007. My cynical side wonders if they wrote this article as a way to make people rethink the whole flip-flop thing. Could it have been written to plant the thought “if this flip flop charge is wrong, maybe the other ones are…..”

      If read as a sincere effort at expressing rational thought the article is a real head scratcher. All the evidence laid out in the article indicates Romney has had a consistent stance.

  • williamjameson

    Romney simply isn’t a conservative, he’s a dime store republican who wears the label as cheaply as it gets. Romeny is the right wing Obama and won’t be the nominee. 10-10-10, yea like it had been 10-10-5 I would have agreed it adds up to 25.

  • dpmapper

    I think it’s important to understand why Romney supporters support Romney, and not just by calling them RINOs and establishment whores. My dad supports Romney. My roommate supports Romney. Both of them are pretty die-hard conservatives. Folks like Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO support Romney, even though they were quick to plug Marco Rubio back when he was at 5% in the primary vs Crist.

    Why is this? It’s not because they’re enthralled with Romney. However, they’ve looked at most of the alternatives (Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich, as each of them has had their time in the sun) and found them wanting in the electability department. You might disagree with their reasoning, and believe that Romney’s electability case is overstated, but there is no sense in believing that their reasons for rejecting the above candidates aren’t legitimate – they are to them, and I don’t think you’re going to convince them that (say) Perry’s habit of forgetting key parts of his platform won’t be a problem in the general. They’ve thought about it already and come to their conclusion – that’s why Perry used to be in the 30-35 range but is now in single digits nationally. If the main thing for these voters is winning (that’s a big thing, and there’s no point in denying it), and they’ve already concluded that Perry, Bachmann, and Gingrich can’t do it, you won’t win them over by saying, “But look at Gingrich’s accomplishments as speaker!” or trying to argue that Perry’s gaffes don’t have anything to do with how well he would govern. They’ve considered that already, and decided they’re not worth the sizable risk. Again, you might calculate that differently, and that’s fine, but realistically you’re not going to convince them otherwise.

    So who does that leave? Santorum and Huntsman. Santorum might have his own electability issues, but most people haven’t given him a serious thought yet. He might yet pull it together; we’ll see if the recent Iowa endorsements help him. Huntsman is more conservative and more consistent than Romney and is at least as electable (I’d argue more so) – the only reason Romney supporters tell me that they’re not for him is that he isn’t going to win the nomination, so why bother? But his Iowa/NH polling combined is at least as good as Santorum’s or Perry’s or Bachmann’s… you never know. Anyhow, I think those are the only ones that have a realistic shot at unseating Romney.

  • acat

    Honest question.

    If the issue is jobs, then .. Romney is a poor choice.
    If the issue is the economy then .. Romney is a middling choice.
    If the issue is health care then .. Romney is the worst choice.
    If the issue is immigration then .. Romney is a lousy choice.

    Mew

  • dpmapper

    All of the above, and none of the above. All they really want is a someone who

    a) can be a credible/electable (in the sense of, can most voters imagine this person as an OK president, not in the sense of, is this person consistent) candidate

    and b) have reasonably conservative positions on the key issues, which include the ones you list (though immigration is slightly lower-tier) and also abortion (which won’t play a huge role in the campaign but they care about very much).

    All the candidates satisfy b to some degree or the other, in my dad’s mind and my roommate’s mind. (I can’t speak for NRO. :) ) Some are slightly better than others, and they might think that Romney is passable but obviously not ideal at part b. But they think Gingrich and Perry and Bachmann fail at part a, in which case it doesn’t matter how well they do on part b.

    I happen to believe Romney is a bit overrated on part a, but sympathize with them regarding their assessments of Perry et al on part a. And you do have to acknowledge that the hard data we have so far (i.e., the polling) points in their direction.

  • dpmapper

    I think NRO has been pretty good in its assessments of primary candidates before. In 2010 they were early supporters of Rubio over Crist, but didn’t support O’Donnell over Castle. Rubio and O’Donnell espoused conservative views whereas Castle and Crist were not particularly principled moderate Republicans. What was the difference? An assessment that O’Donnell couldn’t be a credible candidate whereas Rubio could be.

    If I ever get a chance to post a diary I want to write about the factors that go into assessing electability and credibility. I’ve found that a lot of people here aren’t very good at thinking like a swing voter. :)

  • acat

    If so, then .. yeah, we’re gonna have Romney for a nominee and, if we do, once again, we’re going to have Obama for a POTUS.

    Every time I recall “electability” being the key factor in a primary, it’s led to an abysmal candidate in the general. Bob Dole, for instance. On the other side, John Kerry’s practically the poster-boy for the species.

    I reject the “electability” argument as, given the fruit, it’s a poisoned tree.

    Mew

  • dpmapper

    I don’t recall Gramm, Forbes etc. being eliminated for electability reasons in ’96 (they certainly weren’t as toxic as Gingrich might be), but you can make up your own mind. In this thread I’m just talking about what you can do to try and move Romney voters. If you ignore the fact that *they* care about electability then you’re not going to reach them.

  • acat

    and this is exactly what Romney hoped to achieve with his cloak of inevitability, there’s really no way to argue someone out of a belief that Romney is electable.

    Regarding 1996, Dole was seen as “the best option to replace Clinton” .. i.e. “electable”.. in part because of his tremendous resume. Unfortunately, he ran a very lackluster, no-vision, anti-Clinton campaign. He never really caught in the general, and had to keep fending off Perot on the fiscal-right.

    We would have been better off with Gramm or Forbes who could have cleaned Perots’ clock early, and who had a vision to inspire, just as Reagan cleaned John Andersons’ clock and then put forth a clear vision to take out Carter. Better off with Gramm or Forbes, paws down.

    Mew

  • heraklios

    I fear the Presidency is a lost cause. It appears we need to scale back our goals for 2012 and build toward 2014 and 2016

  • dpmapper

    Differences between ’96 and ’12: In ’96 Clinton had a strong economy and was more than happy to run on it. He didn’t need to demonize Dole (or Gramm, or Forbes, or whoever the nominee would have been). In ’12, Obama does not have a strong economy and wants to change the subject to our nominee’s weaknesses.

    Now, regarding Romney and his supporters… I agree that you won’t be able to convince them that Gingrich or Perry is equally electable (in addition to better on policy), since they’ve already eliminated them. But you *might* be able to convince them that Santorum or Huntsman is equally (or more) electable, and better on policy. That was my point. What will Romney supporters do if Santorum surges in Iowa and/or Huntsman wins NH? The cloak of inevitability will be gone and they’ll re-evaluate; they haven’t given either of those candidates much thought. (OK, *maybe* they’ve thought about Santorum. I doubt they’ve thought about Huntsman seriously, since I can’t see any argument, good or bad, for preferring Romney over Huntsman other than the aforementioned “Huntsman has no shot at the nomination” dismissal.) If Perry or Gingrich eke out a win, though, they won’t be tempted to re-evaluate quite as much, they’ll just double down on Romney.

  • acat

    meaning using the “coattails” of individual -popular- Senate and Governor candidates to get closer to a win of the White House….

    Voters being impure and colouring the oval for a variety of reasons, it’s important to recognize different ways to change their minds about staying home – especially if they’ll vote GOP.

    (if they’ll vote Dem, then by all means leave ‘em home!)

    Mew

  • acat

    First, once someone has been rejected, there shall be no second chances given. This seems quite stupid as the reasons Perry – for example – was rejected will have very little to do with the general… and he’s a lot better on the issues than Romney or Huntsman.

    I will agree that Huntsman appears better than Romney, and could rise between Iowa and Super Tuesday, but .. the problem is, because Huntsman was Governor of Utah, a rather red State, it’s hard to know how much of his “conservatism” is internal and how much was thrust upon him. Remember that Al Gore was a socially-conservative dem up until he got the veepdom and his true colours came out.

    Second, you’re seriously overstating Clinton’s strengths…. which is why I highlighted both 1996 and 1980. In 1980, we had a strong leader as our candidate, in 1996 we had a cardboard cut-out. How hard was it to point out that the only reason we had a strong economy was the Contract With America? Dole, however, never managed to sell that point.

    I assert that if we’d run someone better in 1996, Clinton would have been a one-term wonder.

    If we want Obama to be a one-termer, we need a *good* candidate, not just a cardboard cut-out. Romney won’t cut it.

    Mew