December 27, 2011

"In the span of just two weeks, Mitt Romney has gone from seeming quite vulnerable to the near-inevitable Republican nominee."

Nate Silver says, noting that since December 13, Romney's gone from 42% to 72% at Intrade, and opining that even 72% seems low. (Here's the Intrade chart, and you can see that Romney's just back where he was before, following a brief plunge. Meanwhile, here's what happened to Newt.)

Can you visualize a scenario in which Romney does not emerge as the winner? Silver tries. He notes that Romney's numbers are low for a frontrunner, and you can tell that plenty of Republicans still resist him. Yes, but what could happen? He might do poorly in Iowa. Silver's numbers show that Romney might get as much as 36% in Iowa, but "as little as 8 percent, which could drop him all the way down to fifth or sixth place."
Even a third-place finish in Iowa, much less something worse, might now be viewed as disappointing for Mr. Romney, increasing the risk of either a loss in New Hampshire or a close call that made Mr. Romney vulnerable heading into South Carolina and Florida....

My view is that the probability of these scenarios is higher than is generally acknowledged.... [but] there’s still that issue of one of the other candidates actually having to defeat him. One of the more likely scenarios is that Mr. Romney does take some bruises in the early states, whether at the expense of Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Perry, Mr. Huntsman or even Mr. Paul. But then the other candidate runs out of steam. Mr. Romney recovers and wins, perhaps after a strong performance in Michigan on Feb. 28, on Super Tuesday.

109 comments:

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that the pre-primary system has been good this time. The candidates have been vetted, and the weak ones have floundered and faded.

I went into this feeling that Romney was the perfect candidate, for the last election, and wasn't in-tune with the conservative shift in the voting public, and with Republicans in particular.

But, the more I have seen about him, the better he looks. Sunny, calm, hard working, analytical, etc. Right now, I look at the other Republican candidates, and just cannot see any of the major ones as President, while I can easily see Romney as such.

We shall see what happens, but, as I said above, I think that this has been a very positive process.

edutcher said...

Intrade is for gamblers. These guys frequently misjudge the length of a horse's nose.

The business in VA of four out of six contenders not being on the primary ballot has less to do with the ineffectiveness of the various organizations of Perry, Gingrich, etc., than it does with some last-minute manipulation of the rules.

Add to that, the fact that most of those who will vote in the IA caucuses have yet to make up their minds and we may have some surprises in store.

Milton may be a lot more evitable than he seems

MadisonMan said...

Should I be calling him Mitt! now like I did for Hillary!?

Does his inevitability say more about his greatness as a Candidate or about the quality of the opposition?

Rialby said...

I couldn't believe all of the punditry that swore up and down this weekend on the talk shows that Obama was going to win reelection. Seems crazy, no?

I also cannot believe how quickly Newt collapsed. Nothing really new came out about him but he collapsed nonetheless.

EMD said...

At the very least, Romney would foster a more business-friendly environment, no?

Rialby said...

Romney has no dirt in his past. If he did, it would have been uncovered. There's nothing there.

So, the media and the Left will play the Mormon card mercilessly hoping to turn off both right-leaning evangelicals and independents.

I said it 6 months ago and I'll say it again. Be prepared for violence against Mormons.

EMD said...

Does his inevitability say more about his greatness as a Candidate or about the quality of the opposition?


I think the best people would never really want the job.


WV: fleshmat <--- I don't want to even think about that.

Spread Eagle said...

Romney still has to get actual votes from the party's base in the south, midwest, and west. McCain had that war hero thangie going for him. What does Mitt have? Will the blessing of the angel Moron be enough?

Bender said...

Can you visualize a scenario in which Romney does not emerge as the winner?
___________

Romney is counting on such a scenario. He does not have a strategy to be the winner. He is completely content to simply be the last person standing, to back his way into the nomination.

Romeny does not care that most people are NOT excited about him and do NOT want him to be the nominee -- he will take the nomination any way that he can get it. Romney is satisfied to be the guy that no one really wants, but will take if there is no other choice. His rallying cry is "what other choice do you have?"

That is not the strategy or mindset of a winner. And it speaks volumes as to how a President Romney would govern. You are totally deluded if you think that he is ever going to fight for anything important. Safer for him, he thinks, to simply be business-as-usual, more-of-the-same, nothing-more-than-a-tweak-here-and-a-tweak-there.

Yeah, he is such a "virtuous" guy.

Shawn Levasseur said...

And with 0% of the votes counted (and nearly the same cast) Romney has been declared the victor. So much for democracy.

Tim said...

"That is not the strategy or mindset of a winner. And it speaks volumes as to how a President Romney would govern. You are totally deluded if you think that he is ever going to fight for anything important. Safer for him, he thinks, to simply be business-as-usual, more-of-the-same, nothing-more-than-a-tweak-here-and-a-tweak-there."

And that, notably, would be much, much better than reelecting the least qualified man ever elected president currently taking up space in the White House, cannibalizing America's future with multiple increases in deficit spending.

It's not much of an argument for Romney, save for one thing - defeating Obama is the necessary objective of 2012.

Think things are bad now?

Reelect Obama and see how much worse they can get.

Pogo said...

I can you visualize a scenario in which the USA does not emerge as the winner.

I hope to God I'm horribly wrong.

Anyone But Obama is only one step back from the edge of the cliff. Inertia will continue our unsustainable spending.

We will suffer. The next President can make that short and difficult, long and painful, or even prolonged and then the US does not survive.

There are "business case" examples for what we face, but few have the balls to do what needs to be done.

EDH said...

While Romney would compromise with a Democratic-controlled congress if he had to in order to get things done, as he did in Mass, where I think the Romney critics on the right get it wrong is believing that Romney would still pull things to the left without that pragmatic need for compromise.

Even in Mass, Romney steadfastly vetoed what was unacceptable to him in principle, only to be overridden by a legislature that, left to its own devices without his leadership and influence, would have passed something much closer to a single payer system.

In many ways, Romney is the stealth conservative.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

And that, notably, would be much, much better than reelecting the least qualified man ever elected president currently taking up space in the White House, cannibalizing America's future with multiple increases in deficit spending.


At this point I would vote for a dead Armadillo on the road.

However, given the DOJ's refusal to allow any kind of voter integrity or to stop the rampant voter fraud that is the hallmark of the Democrat party and their tools like ACORN etc. The refusal to investigate illegal campaign donations made by mysterious credit card and internet donors with no oversight. The MSM being in the tank for Obama publishing propaganda and hit pieces on anyone who rises to try to save the country............

I expect that Dear Leader....I mean... Obama will be re elected in a Soviet style landslide and we will continue to decline as a country.

We can't stand 4 more years of Obama. We also can't stand 4 more years of a RINO who will do nothing more than business as usual and who won't make the hard decisions. I see no one in the current line up who has the balls to make those choices, she decided not to run.

The decline would continue, just a little slower. Maybe we SHOULD re-elect Obama and accelerate the end. Like the patient with a gangrenous leg, we can suffer slowly and die or do a radical amputation and survive.

It was nice while it lasted. Bye bye America.

Pogo said...

@EDH

I hope so. I am concerned the mushy middle of both parties will hold sway.

No one wants to tell the truth to the voters.

WW2 was the Greatest Generation.
We're the Greatest Debt Generation.

Bender said...

It's not much of an argument for Romney, save for one thing - defeating Obama is the necessary objective of 2012.

And that is what he is counting on. But if America loses if Obama is re-elected, let's be clear about this too -- America loses if Romney is elected. Being only half as bad or one-quarter as bad as Obama isn't going to cut it.

Meanwhile, that large segment of society that rose up last year (Tea Party) because their "leaders" were not listening to them and they felt powerless in a system that is supposedly one of self-governance, will be even more alienated and angry if yet again something or someone they do not want is forced down their throats.

phx said...

Count on it, the extremist rhetoric will get more and more hysterical as Romney closes in.

traditionalguy said...

It must not be over yet. There is still a half true, twisted hit piece appearing daily on Gingrich.

The 2012 election is becoming a perfect set up for the smilig and courageous fighter for the 99% against a self satisfied and dull representartive of the 1%.

This will make the Tea Party that won the 2010 elections leaderless and wither away, which is what the GOP wants more than the want re-taking the Presidency.

The GOP brahmins just covet the Senate and House Committee Chairmanships ( I.e., where the loot comes out )with Obama playing their enemy that means we need the GOP's Congresional Crooks more than ever.

Our national political drama is designed for the looting of the middle class; and it will not stop until we quit following the media's game and see every reform candidate like a WWF villain designed for our bitter hatred by media slanderd.

Christopher in MA said...

"His rallying cry is 'what other choice do you have?'"

Well, Mittens, I can stay home. That's my choice. Or, as DBQ suggests, "reelect" the SCOAMF and put the torch to what's left of the country.

I continue to ask the Romneybots on this board exactly what they think he will cut. Where will he begin eliminating regulations and departments? How will he rein in spending? What evidence is there that he will do anything except reach out to "my Democratic friends" to genteely manage the country's collapse while keepign his hedge funds intact?

Not even Seven could give me any assurance that Romney would be anything more than what he is - a successful businessman jacked into the DC establishment whose animating purpose is "I'm Mitt Romney, and I should be president!" A wholly-owned subsidiary of the RNC/DNC nomenklatura who grovels to the scum on the left and directs his fire towards conservatives.

chrisnavin said...

Vote for MItt:

He's smarter than Perry...more reasonable (and likable) than Newt...less crazy and more pragmatic than Ron Paul, more electable and more experienced than Bachman, less overtly religious than Santorum (I will stand up against the gay smear campaign against him...is an open Catholic simply unelectable at this point?)...

He may yet win by default.

Please let's get Obama out of there so we can focus on the long term problems with our economy. At least MItt has a better shot at it

campy said...

I expect that Dear Leader....I mean... Obama will be re elected in a Soviet style landslide

Glad somebody else 'gets it.'

That is exactly what is going to happen. There is absolutely no possible way any republican can win in 2012.

hombre said...

The media has created a new McCain, but I am coming around. He strikes me as a milquetoast, who won't really engage the treacherous Obama during the campaign or, should he win, the odious Harry Reid.

But the other Repubs just don't seem presidential, Although Gingrich is more impressive confronting the issues, I just don't trust him.

Obama, Romney, no matter. The institutional corruption will continue to eat our country from the inside.

Pity.

Murph said...

While he isn't perfect and needs some polish, I'm leaning toward a vote for Rick Perry next Tuesday.

I'm aware he didn't put his best foot forward in the beginning. However, I think much of his fumbling was magnified by a media that's hostile to any Texas Republican running for national office.

I have never been comfortable with Romney - his whole persona reeks RINO. Paul's nuts and Newt's - well Newt. The other's are simply unelectable.

hombre said...

Pogo: "No one wants to tell the truth to the voters."

I'm no longer sure the voters are smart enough to benefit from the truth.

Obama's approval is up to 47% according to Real Clear Politics polls and the Dems lead the congressional vote. Unbelievable!

The country is toast!

shiloh said...

"Does his inevitability say more about his greatness as a Candidate or about the quality of the opposition?"

Indeed as his competition is laughable at best ...

Yea, as long as mittens doesn't do anymore fox news interviews where he portrayed himself as an uncorfortable flip/flopping fool.

EDH said...

The left is already kvetching. What I think they fear most about Romney is how reasonable and pragmatic his conservative principles sound to most Americans.

The Anti-Entitlement Strategy
By THOMAS B. EDSALL, NYT

Mitt Romney wants to stigmatize most “safety net” spending – the array of social insurance programs from Medicare to food stamps to unemployment compensation to free school lunches — as a form of welfare that is “cultivating government dependence.”

...This is not the Republicanism of compassionate conservatism, far from it. In recent weeks, the former Massachusetts Governor has laid down a set of markers planting himself firmly on the right – just as Obama has begun to stake out a more leftward position. In outline, we are seeing the beginning of the general election campaign.

Romney’s adoption of an anti-entitlement strategy comes at a time when he appears to be looking up from the primaries toward Election Day, which suggests that his hard-line stance will be central to his campaign against Obama and not just a temporary maneuver. We are headed toward an ideological confrontation over the next 11 months of an intensity rarely seen in American political history.

phx said...

The left is already kvetching. What I think they fear most about Romney is how reasonable and pragmatic his conservative principles sound to most Americans.

That may be, although it may just be now, when most Americans aren't really paying attention. After he gets the nomination he will have the Tea Party types in full force to contend with. How reasonable will he sound to most Americans then when he tries to soothe all that TP anger by pandering?

IMO that's the reason the GOP probably won't win 2012.

SteveR said...

The "he's not conservative enough" folks have to be admired for principal but that got us McCain (not conservative at all) in 2008 which got us Obama which got us Kagan and Sotomayor, Obamacare, Porkulus, etc.

Please stop, Romney is far from perfect but who is? Romney won't be as bad as Obama. Not even close to as bad.

Tim said...

"And that is what he is counting on. But if America loses if Obama is re-elected, let's be clear about this too -- America loses if Romney is elected. Being only half as bad or one-quarter as bad as Obama isn't going to cut it."

Firing Obama, even with as weak a replacement as Romney, gives us a beachhead from which to begin the work to repair America.

"Putting the torch to America" by reelecting Obama is unacceptable, and unforgivable. Once it's rendered, what is there left to fight for? A dream of what it once was? A hope that a people too stupid to do anything but reelect Obama are somehow, some way, going to now be smart enough, tough enough, responsible enough to do the hard work of repairing the very damage they wrought? Who are these Obama voters you would rely upon to, awaken by sudden epiphany, to realize their mistake and put shoulder to grindstone to rebuild America?

Are you high?

These people believe wealth is created not by productivity but by redistribution; these people believe markets operate best under strangling regulations and famishing taxes and fees; these people believe labor unions know better than the investors and managers as to how best establish, run and grow businesses; these people gave us debt-swelling social welfare programs, merit-eroding affirmative action programs, illiteracy-propagating school programs, job-killing regulatory programs - and now, after four more years of Obama they are going to magically pull their heads out of their asses and, for the first time ever, do the right thing for America?

Everything they've ever done has made America weaker, poorer, more dependent and less equipped to deal with hard challenges.

Again, are you high?

shiloh said...

"Romney won't be as bad as Obama."

lol damned w/faint praise ...

Pogo said...

"Romney won't be as bad as Obama. Not even close to as bad."

That's a bumper sticker right there.

A long bumper sticker, but still.

I Callahan said...

How reasonable will he sound to most Americans then when he tries to soothe all that TP anger by pandering?

Right, because tea party anger wasn't the catalyst behind the repubs taking the house over.

I Callahan said...

The "he's not conservative enough" folks have to be admired for principal but that got us McCain (not conservative at all) in 2008 which got us Obama which got us Kagan and Sotomayor, Obamacare, Porkulus, etc.

It's also what got you the republican house that you have now.

Please stop, Romney is far from perfect but who is? Romney won't be as bad as Obama. Not even close to as bad.

Remember this popular hit, seen on TV and radio, from 2008:

Please stop, McCain is far from perfect but who is? McCain won't be as bad as Obama. Not even close to as bad.

Personally, I'm tired of the GOP establishment, and their media cronies, telling me who I need to vote for to win. And a lot of people in these threads have drunk the kool-aid. We haven't had a single vote yet, and a certain group has already said that only Mitt can win.

I say he's the one most apt to lose, just like McCain was. If you think for a minute that all of these coordinated attacks on surging candidates (other than Romney) will end as soon as Romney gets the nomination, you're delusional. This is all by design, and the Obama team are saving up for the final showdown.

We really are doomed.

shiloh said...

Do Althouse's conservative flock truly believe chicken hawk mittens would have done better than military war hero McCain in 2008 ?!?

Whereas it is true no Republican could/would have beat Obama after (8) years of cheney/bush, trying to prop up mittens as better than McCain is rationalization to the nth degree.

Keep hope alive! :-P

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

The MSM, as surrogates for the DNC, have successfully attacked each primary-R candidate in turn, as soon as their poll numbers show voter enthusiasm, and knocked them back down through negatives.

Now should Romney default to the leading candidate, the MSM will open the 2012 campaign by launching a series of smears and attacks upon him, long before the Obama campaign unleashes its own slanders.

This is a game which is intended to keep Republicans out of the white house under all circumstances. And any Republican candidate using negatives against his primary opponents is only assisting the DNC.

Christopher in MA said...

"Again, are you high?"

No. Just sick to death of the left. Sick of years of Soviet-style central planning, sick of endless paeans to the enlightened Europeans and their government health systems, sick to death of an overwwening, overarching, overregulating nannystate. Sick of a powerdrunk kleptocracy that allows animals like Eric Holder and Jon Corzine to wake up each morning rather than be swinging from a lamppost.

I want the left, finally, to live in the world they've created. No, I don't expect them to "magically pull their heads out of their asses." I want them to suffer.

"These people believe wealth is created not by productivity but by redistribution." Yes. I'd love to see Garage's 401K taken away from him and leave him destitute for retirement.

"These people believe markets operate best under strangling regulations and famishing taxes." Yes. I'd love to have whatever business Shiloh works for to close up shop and move overseas, leaving him/her struggling to find a job in order to stay fed and housed.

"Everything they've ever done has made America weaker, poorer, more dependent and less equipped to deal with hard challenges." Yes. Because they can always count on fools like you to protect them from their folly.

No more. It's about goddamn time they paid the price for what they've done.

You will, of course, sneer at me and quote the fatuous Batman line that some men just want to see the world burn. Well, in the case of Little Black Jesus and the 52% of guilty whites, Marxists, traitors, parasites and fools who put his worthless, coke-snorting ass in the White House, you're right.

The left has gotten away with years of undermining the social fabric (heard about the "Glee" writer who says his dream is to one day shoe full anal penetration on primetime TV?), gutting the educational system (Columbus was a bigoted white slaver, children. Ignore him and put this condom on this banana), perverting the electoral system (ACORN, SEIU) and turning the very word "patriotism" into an ironic, postmodern joke. I want them to be slapped in the face with the consequences of their vote.

High? No. Sick of the left. And sick of gutless RINO scum like Romney. But go ahead, Tim. Pretend your vote for Mittens will actually accomplish anything other than a slower race to the bottom. I'm with DBQ on this one.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Christopher

I agree.

When you live in a house infected with toxic black mold you have several remedies.

First of all the toxic black mold didn't just appear overnight. It took a long time to grow through years of neglect and the right growing conditions for the slimy mold.

If you continue to live in the infected house you will become ill. You might even die.

You can paint over the evidence, but the mold is still there. Put up pretty wall paper that covers the mold, which will continue to grow. Spray it with bleach and that might retard the growth, but the mold will continue to grow.

The best solution is to tear down the infected parts of the house, burn the infected drywall and moldy wood: rebuild with new materials and eliminate the environment that encouraged the mold in the first place so that it can't ever come back again.

It might require that you live in a reduced part of the house or even camp out for a while. It might even require some hazmat suits and equipment. Remodeling and rebuilding is the only way to eliminate the hazard.

shiloh said...

DBQ, especially when the toxic black mold started longgg before the current administration ~ (8) years of cheny/bush notwithstanding.

take care

Dust Bunny Queen said...

DBQ, especially when the toxic black mold started longgg before the current administration ~ (8) years of cheny/bush notwithstanding.

Absolutely. Did I ever say it didn't?

This mold has been growing for decades. At least 40 to 50 years of slow mold and decay. From FDR's misguided social engineering policies to LBJ's Great Society, free for all give away and destruction of the black middle class and the purposeful creation of a permanent economic underclass dependent on government largess through income redistribution for the sole purpose of retaining votes and power.

The mold goes deep and has been growing for a very very long time.

It is a big remodeling project, but I think we can do it and save the house, unless we just want to burn down the whole damned house and start over.

Pogo said...

That was DBQ's point, shiloh.

It's been going on since about 1928; immamentizing the eschaton.

Lyssa said...

Newt Gingrich is NOT going to be some almighty savior who will make the hard changes that Romney would not. He will do what he has always done: talk a big game, make some grand plans, and then get sidetracked and fail to follow through. Is that better?

Are Bachmann/Santorum/Paul, who have absolutely no leadership experience which would show that they can do anything but talk a good game, better? Talk is just talk.

You can cry and scream all you want about Romney not being good enough for your ideals, but unless you can show me that someone will be better, you're just blowing smoke. This is not a training position. It's not about electabilty; it's about who can actually do the job, not just who can talk about what they would do in their fantasy of what the job would involve.

Lyssa said...

It is a big remodeling project, but I think we can do it and save the house, unless we just want to burn down the whole damned house and start over.

Sure, it's possible. There's not non-Romney person in the running who could be counted on to do it, though.

(Maybe Perry, but no one's talking about him lately.)

Christopher in MA said...

". . .it's about who can actually do the job."

Lyssa, I completely agree with you. My contention (repeated for the umpteenth time) is that Romney is NOT that man. Again, he can talk a good game now, but his record shows that when faced with opposition (and you know the left will cheer to the skies the first person who says their job is to make Romney a one-term president), he collapses. He'd rather protect his image of collegiality rather than make enemies.

Sure, he's got fire in the belly now - against Perry. Or Gingrich. Show me when he's ever used real fire against the left beyond snarky little comments about Obama's golf grip.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

It's not about electabilty; it's about who can actually do the job

It is also about how you define the job.

Obama was right up front with his agenda. To reshape and fundamentally change America. He is doing a good job on his promise.

If the job is perceived as being able to get along with the opposition party and singing kumbaya with arms linked as we slide slowly over the falls. Compromising ourselves into a debt death sprial. Business as usual.

Or is the job to make the hard decisions and rock the boat and throw out an anchor. Will that take some compromise? Maybe. But continuing to row row row our boat gently down the stream with the Skipper and Gilligan in charge isn't getting us anywhere. Anywhere that I want to go, anyway.

Pogo said...

"This is not a training position. It's not about electability"

True, and there's the rub. America is center-left, and hooked on free ponies. The only people who can get elected promise (1) more free ponies or (2) better-managed free pony giveaways.

Most of America doesn't want to hear the truth about all the free stuff they demand. We're no different than Europe in that regard.

But at some point the bill comes due, and more paper-shuffling won't matter.

shiloh said...

Pogo

But C in MA was mainly blaming liberals for all the countries problems over the past several years ie nannystate/Marxists yada yada yada which DBQ totally agreed.

Whereas NAFTA was mainly a conservative idea, etc. etc.

But it's quite obvious C in MA and DBQ are (2) of Althouse's biggest whiners, not a close call.

So many conservative whiners, so little time ...

IggyRules said...

"I think that the pre-primary system has been good this time."
I agree Bruce. I hear a lot of people complaining about the candidates, the number of debates, the lead changes, etc... You have a field of candidates made up of men, woman, moderates, conservatives, libertarian, and neo-cons in vigorous debate. It's been an excellent display of representative democracy. What more can you ask for? I don’t think you’ll see a strong third party run this year to spoil the Republican’s chance either. If Paul runs third party (doubtful) Republicans who currently support him (we’re not all a bunch of “mischief voters” as today’s hugely cited article in The Examiner make us out to be), will vote for the R-nominee. It’s been a great primary so far. Paul continues to get many of the jingoistic, knee-jerk Republicans to think more objectively about the systems’ failures. That’s very good and all one could ask for given the brainwashed state of the Union. Just wait until Rand runs – then we’ll see something remarkable.

shiloh said...

"Just wait until Rand runs – then we’ll see something remarkable."

Indeed, another LBJ landslide!

Pogo said...

"But C in MA was mainly blaming liberals for all the countries problems over the past several years ie nannystate/Marxists"

Because all Democrats and many Republicans are liberals.

And both DBQ and C in MA are merely pointing out what Hayek and Mises knew.

Asking for fewer free ponies isn't "whining"; it's adult talk. Probably you're around whining free pony types all the time, so all complaints are whining to you.

You just want us to shut up and pay..

shiloh said...

No Pogo, actually enjoy conservative whining as that's one of this blog's strong points ie what liberal doesn't enjoy teabagger whining. :)

Christopher in MA said...

"But C in MA was mainly blaming liberals. . ."

Because it's liberals I want to see suffer, Shiloh. Oh, I could go on about NAFTA, TARP, the insane Medicare Part B, Nixon's moronic "New American Revolution" which resulted only in more government meddling, the "compassionate conservative" garbage of W, the talk a good game of Reagan who was a gutless wimp when it came to cutting the federal cuttlefish down to size, but what good would it do? You wouldn't listen, anyway.

DBQ pointed out, correctly, that both parties bear the blame for the economic black hole we're looking at. But only one party has consistently held on to power by promising "he has more, you'll get more!" and demonizing any attempts at budget cuts or slowing of rates of growth as killing grandma to turn her into Soylent Green.

But keep chuckling to yourself about "whining." Eventually, you'll run out of free money to bribe the vandals. We'll see who's whining then.

Christopher in MA said...

Ah, "teabagger whining."

Thank you, Shiloh. Based on your past posts, I presumed you to be merely a potty-mouthed partisan hack and now you have proven it. You're worth no more of my time.

Bender said...

You can cry and scream all you want about Romney not being good enough for your ideals, but . . .

we need to vote for him anyway?

Screw that. Enough with having to hold your nose to vote. The only thing you get then is electing something that stinks. Not going to do it.

Romney can get himself elected without my vote.

Lyssa said...

Christopher in MA: I completely agree with you. My contention (repeated for the umpteenth time) is that Romney is NOT that man.

Then who is? And why? There's no fantasy candidate available, only the ones who are actually on that stage week after week. Of them, Romney (or maybe Perry, but I'm hesitant to include him) is by far the closest to that man.

shiloh said...

"You're worth no more of my time."

Does this mean you no longer want to see me suffer? ;) Rhetorical

take care C in MA

Cedarford said...

chris in Mass - "Again, he can talk a good game now, but his record shows that when faced with opposition (and you know the left will cheer to the skies the first person who says their job is to make Romney a one-term president), he collapses. He'd rather protect his image of collegiality rather than make enemies."

Yah, real marshmallow that Romney is. Why his whole history is as an unsuccessful pushover trying to please everyone at a failing business or startup business as CEO at Bain, in floundering ineffectually trying to please all the dysfunctional people he bailed out in the 2002 Olympics. And despite 700 vetos - only being governor in Mass to please the Democrats.

=================

SteveR said...

What's so funny about saying Romney won't be as bad as Obama? What better choice do you have?

I'm supposed to ride out another four years of GodZero to bring on the real conservative hero?

John Lynch said...

Republican nominee Mike Huckabee was unavailable for comment.

Pogo said...

@SteveR "What better choice do you have?"

Like choosing between between Scylla and Charybdis.

mccullough said...

Repealing Obamacare and Medicare Part D would be a good start. Not sure if Mitt could get this accomplished.

Anyway, America is in horrible fiscal shape, so of the candidates out there only Romney and Huntsman might have the ability to rectify this. The President has to accomplish this through the Congress and with cooperation from the states. This eliminates most of the Republican candidates from being effective Presidents.

Cedarford said...

shiloh said...
Do Althouse's conservative flock truly believe chicken hawk mittens would have done better than military war hero McCain in 2008 ?!?
===============
Love how the Lefties love the homosexual chicken hawk smear. Among the rarest sights in the military are liberals and progressive Jews. The volunteer military is about 65% Republican, and 20% independents and Democrats who characterize themselves as having "strong conservative and Christian values" - with the remainder 15% largely Democrat voting inclined minorities that believe in some conservative things but also strongly in wealth redistribution and free government goodies.

But Dem leaders who "SERVED with the Heroes???" few and far inbetween and mostly limited to older Dems that served when the Draft was still in effect.

Obama, Hillary, Al Sharpton, Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, Pelosi, famous Hollywood celebrities and Moguls that are rabid Democrats? Kuninich, Edwards, Anthony Weiner, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jesse Jackson, Chuck Schumer, Rahm Emmanuel, Michael Moore, the whole NY Times editorial board, Obama's SCOTUS picks??

Not a page of a DD-214 in the whole lot of them.

Least Romney can say he was on a mission from God..and even if he hadn't gotten a deferment, Mitt would have not been Drafted as his number was slightly above 300th.

What is Obama's excuse for NEVER SERVING, and being a "Chickenhawk" that wants more war in Afghanistan, started one in Libya?

Der Hahn said...

Personally I wish that Tim Pawlenty had stuck around after the straw poll (he probably wishes he had, too) or that Rick Perry hadn't imploded in the debates. I'm going to caucus for Mitt with hopes that Iowa can salvage some respectablity in the nomination process. I agree with Silver that the nomination is Romney's to lose (which he might) but I'm not sure a low finish in Iowa would be fatal. Mitt's polling levels have always been soft. McCain ran third in 2008 and still wound up with the nomination. A lot depends on who winds up on top. If Ron Paul winds up on top the story out of Iowa is going to be far more what an outlier we are. Since 1976 the eventual GOP nominee has only won Iowa twice (Dole 1996, GWB 2000). In the same time period the eventual GOP nominee has only *lost* in New Hampshire twice (Dole 1996, GWB 2000). Romney will have a problem with a Gingrich or Perry but neither of those seem likely. If anybody else comes out on top where Romney finishes is going to be something of an afterthought.

One major difference between 2008 and 2012 is that Romney was banking on Iowa to move him out of the beauty contest wins in places like Wyoming. He had invested a lot of time and money here so his second place finish behind Huckabee had a much bigger impact on his standing.

Christopher in MA said...

"I'm supposed to ride out another four years of GodZero to bring on the real conservative hero?"

No. Vote for Romney if you think he's the better man. And if he actually performs as promised, bully for him. But you'll forgive me if all I hear is "sure, you had nowhere to go with that Dole shit sandwich and the McCain shit sandwich was really nasty, but the Romney shit sandwich has mustard on it! Nom, nom, nom!"

garage mahal said...

Yah, real marshmallow that Romney is

How many memorable insults towards liberals can you recall from Romney? Christopher in MA has clear needs in this department that aren't going to be fulfilled with Romney. In fact, nothing less than physical torture of liberals by the hands of the Republican nominee, at the debates, on national TV, will suffice!

Lyssa said...

Christopher in MA Vote for Romney if you think he's the better man. And if he actually performs as promised, bully for him.

Personally, I do think (in fact, I'm sure) that Romney's the better man. If you think I'm wrong, who is the better man? All politicians are differing levels of shit sandwiches. Just complaining about Romney, as if there's something better when there's not, does nothing but blow off steam.

jamboree said...

My rather superficial question is when did the Republican field become such a freak show?

The republicans I know IRL are solid, straight arrow types - Romneyish in looks with a heavy dose of technical mind.

It's embarrassing. And I'm indy at this point. It's only my former republican-sympathizing self that's feeling awkward about it.

Any other executive position would have a deep bench of qualified candidates - yes w/o heinous skeletons in their closet. But President of the US? We get this. It's absurd.

shiloh said...

Exit polls 2008 ~ Military veterans:

McCain 54% / Obama 44%

Factoid: Republicans have not won without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket since 1928.

So mittens should pick Jeb Bush as his v-p.

The big question. Will Bush43 and Cheney be allowed to appear at the 2012 Rep convention? :D

And please, let the Romney rationalizations continue ...

AJ Lynch said...

Biden should be on C-ford's list too.

bagoh20 said...

Does anybody ever announce their VP preference to win the primary?

For example saying: After I kick his ass in the primary, I'll pick him for VP.

I Callahan said...

All politicians are differing levels of shit sandwiches.

And you're just going to accept it. There's the problem.

Thanks to a willing media, and democrat party machine that cares only about winning, the only people we get are egotists and professional politicians. No one in their right mind wants to really run for president. Would you want every single thing you've ever done wrong put on television for all of the world to see?

I'm with DBQ, Chris in MA, and Crack - we really are doomed.

Christopher in MA said...

"In fact, nothing less than physical torture of liberals by the hands of the Republican nominee at the debates on national TV will suffice!"

Just call it a late-late-term abortion, garbage.

The Crack Emcee said...

Having enough money to hang around doesn't make him right for us,...

The Crack Emcee said...

EMD,

At the very least, Romney would foster a more business-friendly environment, no?

Yeah, at the very least,...but is that really what we're shooting for?

shiloh said...

Will Rick 36% job approval Scott be allowed to appear at the 2012 Rep convention in Tampa, FL ?!?

Hopefully just a cameo appearance. ;)

Cedarford said...

AJ Lynch said...
Biden should be on C-ford's list too.
============
Yep. An oversight. So many Lefty cowards who never SERVED!!! with the heroes, as the lefties like to put it...so little space to list them all.

BTW - I am fine with many who didn't serve for various reasons or who did serve but still had slimball anti-American leftists and progressive Jewish journalists throwing out the chickenhawk smear because "Bush being in the Guard and flying F-102s is still not TRULY SERVING!! - in Vietnam!". Or Reagan spending WWII on a movie lot making propaganda films instead of knifing Japs in tunnels on Iwo Jima. So what!!

Lets also say I agree somewhat with those that point out the paucity of actual military experience in the Neocons that scream for more wars for Freeing!! noble 3rd Worlders..And the notation that military service of the children of prominent neocons is not that common...Palin and McCain's kids are execptions to the general rule that Neocons and children of neocons serve by going to law or journalism school.

bagoh20 said...

Isn't it strange that despite being pretty weak among Repubs all year, Romney seems inevitable? He's seen as almost the antithesis of what many conservatives want right now, but he can win.

Tough decisions are like that. Do I keep the free toaster oven or risk it all for the new Merc. Montclair?

David said...

Romney-Rubio

SteveR said...

@ Pogo "Like choosing between between Scylla and Charybdis."

I'm entirely certain the fact that Romney would never nominate the likes of Kagan or Sotomayoy to SCOTUS makes your use of that idiom inapt. For starters..

bagoh20 said...

Rubio's ideology is what Romney's should be. That would be a nice ticket. Obama has lowered the bar, so that nobody can ever say experience matters in elections.

Pogo said...

@SteveR

Maybe so. Romney is backed by GHW Bush, who gave us Souter and Thomas. Could go either way.

I'll hold my nose and vote for Not Obama.

But I think we're screwed, so I am unhappy. Others disagree and think the ship can be righted. We'll see.

But I have little hope for it.

Tim said...

"High? No. Sick of the left. And sick of gutless RINO scum like Romney. But go ahead, Tim. Pretend your vote for Mittens will actually accomplish anything other than a slower race to the bottom. I'm with DBQ on this one."

My contempt for the Left and "RINO's" equals or surpasses yours, so you're welcome to stop thinking "fools like (me want) to protect them from their folly."

I've sworn to defend the Constitution more times than I can remember at the moment - I have every intention of defending my nation from the idiots who have impoverished its wealth, its character and its fortitude on corrosive social and economic policies.

DBQ is right - the ship of state is rent with generations of black mold, thanks to the Left - but the ship must stay afloat if we are to save it. Reelecting Obama will sink the ship.

Do not think for a moment Romney is "my candidate." He is not. He is, due to the paucity of talent in the Republican field, the only viable candidate.

Gingrich is not.

Perry is not.

Bachmann is not.

Santorum is not.

Huntsman is not.

Paul is not.

It would be hilarious if it were not so damned tragic.

Our situation and our candidates are analogous to the Siege of Calais. We are in desperate straits. Our job now is not to win the war - because right now, just like in late May, 1940 - the war is not winnable. All we can do is buy time now to win the war later.

Romney is, at best, like the British regiments left to defend the retreat to Dunkirk, to save the British Expeditionary Force from encirclement, destruction and capture. The mission then was to save the British Army to fight another day; the mission today is to stop the savaging of America's future so there might be something worth saving when we are strong enough to do so.

You may think the another candidate besides Romney is that candidate - pray tell who, and why? What other candidate will peal off Obama voters? What other candidate can make the case he or she can actually govern? On what basis?

Speeches?

Don't be a fool. Haven't we learned anything from Obama?

That there is nothing cheaper in politics than mere words?

Who has meaningful substance?

Who as temperament?

Who has executive experience?

Who is electable?

I had hopes it would be Perry.

But he has completely flopped.

None of the others can do it but Romney.

And I say this desperately wishing we had someone else. Romney may win, and I will surely be disappointed by him on countless occasions.

But we don't have anyone else.

So burn the ship while you wait for your perfect or even "better" candidate; but don't be surprised if the quality of candidates running in '16 are even worse than they are now.

After all, who amongst your unknown, undiscovered candidates would want to govern a thoroughly hollowed out nation?

Jose_K said...

with this camp:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-pauls-house-record-stands-out-for-its-futility-and-tenacity/2011/12/23/gIQA5ioVJP_story.html?tid=sm_btn_tw

Gary Rosen said...

C-fudd's not antisemitic, he's just principled (#51)

SteveR said...

@Pogo

The Souter nomination may have ended the Stealth Nominee scenario, forever. I can't pretend to have much hope either but some is better than none.

EMD said...

Tough decisions are like that. Do I keep the free toaster oven or risk it all for the new Merc. Montclair

The toaster oven. They don't even make Mercurys anymore.

Pogo said...

Agreed. Scott M once described me as a "glass half disaster kinda guy".

Funny as hell, and true.

rcommal said...

Obama has lowered the bar, so that nobody can ever say experience matters in elections.

Sure they can--especially those who thought that regarding Obama and therefore didn't vote for him.

IggyRules said...

Tim,
Give me a break. I commiserate with your despondency given the terrible state of the Union but the GOP field is rife with selection. What was wrong with Bachmann or Santorum? At this point in history, you couldn't ask for a better GOP field. You’re living in an alternate reality. There are no more truly principled leaders in politics (pretty damn scarce in the private sector too). They all died or left. No one replaced them. Society no longer holds people with REAL ethical, moral, and religious convictions in high regard. Current society HATES these people. All you can do is think it out, back the candidate who sort of represents your ideas and then question everything you read or hear about your candidate. I support Ron Paul. I’ll vote for the R-nominee in the general election. Ron Paul is not the perfect candidate. He has many flaws. However, the hate shite the media and blogs are spewing about him is just mind blowing. Same goes for Gingrich. But - this is to be expected.

Phil 3:14 said...

Pre- season is over

Phil 3:14 said...

and so is this thread

Jim said...

I still haven't heard one good reason why all these self-described conservatives are planning to support the least conservative candidate in the race. Look at Romney's actual record (what little there is of it). NONE of it is conservative. And yet I still see conservatives say he will somehow magically govern as a conservative. I ask again: why would anyone believe this?

mariner said...

Tim,
"Putting the torch to America" by reelecting Obama is unacceptable, and unforgivable. Once it's rendered, what is there left to fight for? A dream of what it once was? A hope that a people too stupid to do anything but reelect Obama are somehow, some way, going to now be smart enough, tough enough, responsible enough to do the hard work of repairing the very damage they wrought?

No; those people will die disproportionately in the resulting civil war.

Bender said...

Look at Romney's actual record (what little there is of it). NONE of it is conservative.
______________

But, but, but, the guy with experience as an event planner is a lot better than the guy with experience as a community organizer, isn't he?

Isn't that good enough reason to elect him??

Dust Bunny Queen said...

No; those people will die disproportionately in the resulting civil war

Because none of them have a rec-room like this!!


VW: excsbil Google....how does it know?
:-D

shiloh said...

ok, ok, DBQ being over the top re: her 24/7 whining is somewhat amusing.

11 Steps to Surviving a Nuclear Attack

>
>
>

#12 Put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye!

Duck and Cover ...

Tim said...

"What was wrong with Bachmann or Santorum?"

Santorum lost reelection to a blunt instrument in his home state. He's polling in the low single-digits. He has raised no money. Almost NO ONE supports him, most especially including the idiot "swing voters" who voted for Obama in '08.

Bachmann is an inexperienced goof ball - Gardasil causes mental retardation? That's as immediately disqualifying as anything. Five years in the House of Representatives?

Some people are too easily impressed.

What, exactly, are the arguments for any Republican not Romney that will appeal to idiot swing voters who voted for Obama in '08?

List them - I'm all eyes...

Tim said...

"No; those people will die disproportionately in the resulting civil war."

Get real.

Seriously.

You think the United States Department of Defense and the uniform services are going to sit on the sidelines while Red-state goes after Blue-states, or vice-versa?

Or do you think the uniform services are going to align with Republicans?

What about National Guard units in Democrat states?

Who runs your air force?

How many artillery guns do you have?

Armor?

Mortars?

Machine guns?

Do you have any automatic weapons?

Or do you think there's going to be a "Seven Days in May" scenario?

Who leads this fantasy civil war?

How is it financed?

Where is it's industrial base?

Or do you think the existing stockpile of handguns, rifles and shotguns and ammunition is enough to tide over the righteous unto victory, in a few short weeks of blood-letting?

Or is it built upon some covert, "death squads" going after the leading lights of the establishment media, academia, etc., terrorizing them into submission?

Who collects the garbage, provides the power, water, and sewage services while this fantasy civil war is being fought?

Where does the food come from?

Do you have enough water, food, fuel, and ammunition to hold off your neighbors from raiding your larder?

How many of them are you willing to kill to stay alive?

Is your wife (presuming you have one) in on this fantasy of yours?

God save us from idiots and their fantasies.

There - I just gave your idiocy much more time than it deserved.

shiloh said...

"There - I just gave your idiocy much more time than it deserved."

Indeed, but thanx for sharing.

mariner said...

Tim,
God save us from idiots and their fantasies.

He didn't save us from Obama and his supporters, and He won't save us from the aftermath either.

Give it two or three more years, and we'll see which of us is the idiot. Until then you're just another arrogant Internet blowhard.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Who collects the garbage, provides the power, water, and sewage services while this fantasy civil war is being fought?

You live in the city, don't you?

Where does the food come from?

We kill it, grow it and stock it ahead of time.

Do you have enough water, food, fuel, and ammunition to hold off your neighbors from raiding your larder?

Almost.

How many of them are you willing to kill to stay alive?

All of them.

Is your wife (presuming you have one) in on this fantasy of yours?


I don't have a wife, although...when I was working I thought it would be very nice to have one. My husband also buys into this fantasy, as you call it.

somefeller said...

Oh, look. More fantasies of violence and societal collapse from the Cletus Corner. Always fun to read. Here's a pro tip - if the only way your views can be vIndicated is by the total collapse of the society you live in, you might be a crank and a loser. But you knew that already.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ shilo

DBQ being over the top re: her 24/7 whining is somewhat amusing.



Come on! Six degrees to the end of the world.

hint: you have to actually look at the clip to understand the reference.

Nerds get it.

bagoh20 said...

@ Tim

Maybe you're right, but they're still gonna die disproportionately.

bagoh20 said...

"Tremors" was a metaphor for the threat of the burrowing bloodthirsty worm of collectivism that starts life as a smaller, cuter bloodthirsty beast and grows as it feeds on anyone who makes a living involving movement of any kind.

shiloh said...

DBQ, unfortunately I did watch the scene. :-P If that was the best scene from as one of the comments mentioned ~ Dude, this is THE best film EVER! what can one say other than ~ Oh the humanity!

W/out having seen the movie, let me guess ~ Independence Day w/out a plot.

And as I'm also a Tim, let me quote him again ... "There - I just gave your idiocy much more time than it deserved."

Man's got to know his limitations ...

Steve Koch said...

Societal collapse is an interesting topic. All societies eventually collapse, our society won't be an exception.

It is too bad that sociology isn't a science with predictive capabilities. It would be great to understand how our society is likely to transform over (for example) the next century and to know what are the actual greatest threats to our survival. Unfortunately, we are not close to having that capability.

For now, we have to learn from history. That probably isn't going to happen, either.

Tarkwell Robotico said...

Do all societies "collapse"?

To me, "collapse" evokes something swift and brutal.

Declines are not really "collapses" are they?

And, one man's decline is another man's rise: today's citizens of the city of Rome live better lives than those Roman citizens living at the apex of the Roman empire.

So maybe none of them today get to be the Head of Executions for a mighty empire. They live longer with a better supply of food, medicine, housing. They have greater freedoms and access to vastly better education. They use pedestrian technologies that an ancient Roman would only understand as magic.

A planning horizon that includes the Eventual Societal Collapse of the USA will not generate any useful results in terms of deciding how to preside over the United States.

Cheer up and focus on the daunting but parochial problems at hand.

Tim said...

mariner said...

"Give it two or three more years, and we'll see which of us is the idiot. Until then you're just another arrogant Internet blowhard."

Curious logic there, "mariner." One is an "arrogant Internet blowhard" for completely discounting the prediction of civil war as a idiotic fantasy, whereas the person predicting idiot Obama voters "will die disproportionately in the resulting civil war" is a model of rational probity and tempered humility?

Give it a rest.

Anyway, I'll give you another chance. Man up and prove both your points by answering my questions as to how you see this civil war of yours playing out.

If you can.

Which I doubt.

Dante said...

@hombre:

"He strikes me as a milquetoast, who won't really engage the treacherous Obama during the campaign or, should he win, the odious Harry Reid."

Romney does remind me of milk toast.

I wonder who is more electable: Romney or Gingrich. Gingrich has his baggage, no doubt, and he gets too excited about ideas like CA governor Jerry Brown does(oddly, I admire that quality in both politicians), but when it comes to the debates, who is going to be better.

I simply can't imagine Romney getting up there and sticking the knife into Obama over his job losing policies, from Solyndra, the payoffs to large energy concerns, lack of pushing for our own realizable energy policy, etc. Gingrich would make mincemeat of Obama.

If getting rid of Obama is the goal, Gingrich is the man, not Romney.