“A convention in July is a historic success for our party and future nominee,” RNC chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement. “The convention will be held significantly earlier than previous election cycles, allowing access to crucial general election funds earlier than ever before to give our nominee a strong advantage heading into Election Day.”So, it's all about the money — not about speeding up the selection process? We always know by July who the candidate is. (Finding out who's the VP choice might be in play.) The convention is a theatrical event and it's good to stage it when it will have the best impact, but who watches live TV anymore and are they more amenable to staring at the tube in July than in August? I'll assume it's mostly about money, but perhaps it's a bit about theater.
Did you like my little theater... in the post title?
Posts
68 comments:
Romney was badly injured by the late convention as he was unable to respond to the campaign of lies and embellishments of silly incidents, like cutting a kids hair in school, that filled the summer with no reply.
That was a serious mistake and I'm glad to see that they have corrected it.
2016 Olympics in Rio are Aug 5 to Aug 21, which is another reason not to have it in August (only open weekend is Labor Day).
I know the party holding the White House normally nominates its nomineee after the "out" party does, but is that just a tradition? Is there anything preventing parties from moving their nominations up to say a week after the last state has held its primary?
The campaign spending rules are absolutely ludicrous anyway. Whether the candidate is spending money to win a primary or a general election should have no bearing, especially as a lot of that spending is on the exact same things. Just get rid of those rules and require full disclosure to ensure there is a record in case of later corruption and bribery. If anything, these rules don't keep the rich and powerful from influencing politics, but ensure that the rich and powerful maintain a monopoly over influencing politics--much harder for a scrappy underdog to navigate the funding and spending rules than for those who have the access and money to figure it out.
Just watching Barry Diller (guest host on CNBC Squawk Box this morning) and he says, "Live tv is an advantage that promotes viewership".
I personally like your teaser of Romney being nominated on July 20th, 2016. Meade probably does too.
If it happens, you'll be known a "Althouse, Prophetess".
We shall see.
A second run worked out for Nixon. What could go wrong?
I sort of doubt Romney will even run. I predict if he does though, he'll be out of it before the Iowa caucus.
AReasonableMan: A second run worked out for Nixon. What could go wrong?
2012 was Romney's second run.
I doubt the power of the Romney 2016 "I Told You So" Campaign Tour.
I dreamed about Romney last night.
That man is deeply embedded in the American consciousness. Deeply embedded.
"AReasonableMan said...
A second run worked out for Nixon. What could go wrong?"
Couldn't be worse than Romney's first run. I mean even Nixon didn't have the balls to weaponize the IRS.
It must kill Romney not to be president now, when our current one is so bad and Romney would be so good.
But I'll be shocked to see him run again for real.
We will see.
If Romney takes charge of his own campaign and runs as his own man, who knows?
Did you like my little theater... in the post title?
No.
Mitt Romney didn't want the job enough back in 2012. I don't think he wants it enough to truly campaign today. I think he's tossing his hat in the ring because it's expected of him. Noblesse oblige and all that, you know.
Encouragingly were seeing The money from the oligarchs aligning with Mitt already.
rehajm said...
Encouragingly were seeing The money from the oligarchs aligning with Mitt already.
They recognize one of their own.
MayBee said...
It must kill Romney not to be president now, when our current one is so bad
The best run economy in the western world not good enough for you? Even Romney has dropped the pretense that the economy would be better under him, he's concerned for the 'poor' now.
Maybe Romney will run as a false flag. Maybe he's a true-red conservative and figures he will split the moderate vote with Jeb and thereby elevate Cruz or Jindal to the nomination.
The most racist executive in a hundred years not good enough for you? Even Obama has dropped the pretense that he would bring Americans together. He's concerned for the 'planet' now.
Gee, this is easy!
They recognize one of their own.
Ha! Good one!
Romney needs a commercial.
He needs to gather all the clips of all the loony liberal naysayers who tried to prove him wrong, and tried to dismiss his concerns about the state of the world and the state of jobs in America and the disaster of Obamacare and executive meddling by our Waffler-in-Chief (or Sleeper-Agent-in-Chief, I honestly cannot tell anymore).
Then he needs to gather clips of the same networks, and even some of the same talking heads, discussing the ramifications and responses to the very things that they'd earlier said would not happen, but then did happen.
He needs someone to create a 3 minute commercial showing just how right he was, and just how far out the media went to paint him as crazy and out of touch, when in reality it was they who were out of touch.
I'd prefer a stronger Conservative. Honestly, I would. But Romney's business acumen, raw intellect, and tough moral fiber are things America needs. If he can find a Veep who can supply whatever backbone quotient he might be missing, I'd support him again.
In my dream world, by the way, Romney/Cruz or Romney/Carson would carry the day, and the leftist media types would be cleaning toilets in the White House as penance for their misdeeds, never again to work in broadcasting because maybe the public at large would finally see how devious and deceitful they are.
I mean even Nixon didn't have the balls to weaponize the IRS.
LOL. Was Nixon 100-0?. Let's review, shall we?
2008 (Fail)
2012 (Fail)
Tommy Thompson (Fail)
IRS (Fail)
Fast & Furious (Fail)
ObamaCare (Fail)
Benghazi (Fail)
Mustard (Fail)
FEMA Camps (Fail)
Gay Lover (Fail)
Birth Certificate (Fail)
Bowing (Fail)
Cooked jobs numbers (Fail)
Death Panels (Fail)
"So, it's all about the money "
Sure, but the sneering is better directed at the campaign finance edifice rather than the party.
The best we can do is a Part-Time economy, eh ARM?
Besides, with the state of Europe these days, saying we're the best run Western economy isn't saying much. It's nice being the tallest midget, but you're still a midget.
You're right, Garage.
Obamacare is a failure.
Our cooked jobs numbers show a failure of leadership.
Fast & Furious was a failure of brains on Holder and Obama.
IRS failures are mounting everyday.
Benghazi is a failure of leadership from Hildebeest and Obama.
In Chicago, it's well known that Obama swings both ways (which bothers me not the least).
And whoever cooked up his birth certificate is a pretty bad forger, so technically a failure as well.
I'm glad we agree.
"The best run economy in the western world not good enough for you?"
It would be a hell of a lot better if the Administration stopped trying to "run" it.
Something something deck chairs on the Titanic.
"The best run economy in the western world not good enough for you?"
A little perspective on the best run economy in the world:
Long term annual GDP growth in the United States has averaged about 3.5% a year. We have not seen 3.5% growth since 2004-2005. We are now 7% below long term trend GDP, which means at current growth rates we have lost over 2 years of GDP.
Summer of Recovery is always next Summer.
It's good to finally see Democrats taking 'credit' for the economy though.
It is easy to have low unemployment when one simply discards millions upon millions of workers from the calculation as "no longer looking for work." Success!
As to Romney, McCain, Dole and every other establishment Republican "pick" whose "turn to lose" has come up, I weep.
Whose turn is it to lose this time, Republican elite? Because what I as a voter want is red meat, not Democrat lite.
Fandor said - ....If it happens, you'll be known a "Althouse, Prophetess".
Will this mean showing images of Althouse will be blasphemy?
rehajm said...
We are now 7% below long term trend GDP, which means at current growth rates we have lost over 2 years of GDP.
Thanks to the Bush Great Recession. The deepest recession since the Great Depression. Bush owns this one.
It's still Bushes fault?
How original.
The best run economy in the western world not good enough for you? Even Romney has dropped the pretense that the economy would be better under him, he's concerned for the 'poor' now.
and
Thanks to the Bush Great Recession. The deepest recession since the Great Depression. Bush owns this one.
Wait, Bush owns the best run economy in the Western World?
Or have you decided to agree with Maybee?
Bush's fault! Good one!
AReasonableMan said...
rehajm said...
We are now 7% below long term trend GDP, which means at current growth rates we have lost over 2 years of GDP.
Thanks to the Bush Great Recession. The deepest recession since the Great Depression. Bush owns this one.
1/15/15, 10:28 AM"
According to economists the Great Recession started in 2007 and ended in 2009 so Obama and the Democrats can take credit for screwing up the recovery. Obama and the Democrats own this.
cubanbob said...
According to economists the Great Recession started in 2007 and ended in 2009 so Obama and the Democrats can take credit for screwing up the recovery. Obama and the Democrats own this.
And the cause of the Bush Great Recession was the Great Bush Housing Bubble. At least try to pretend that you understand some economics.
“A convention in July is a historic success for our party and future nominee,” RNC chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement. “The convention will be held significantly earlier than previous election cycles, allowing access to crucial general election funds earlier than ever before to give our nominee a strong advantage heading into Election Day.”
Maybe this genius Reince can answer the question we all really want to know: can the GOP nominate a candidate that is worse than any potential Democrat candidate? For normal people that should be an impossibility but the RNC has a unique ability to do what most would consider the impossible.
The housing bubble is not on Bush. He even made an attempt to reign in Fannie and Fredie. I will agree he didn't try hard enough.
AReasonableMan said...
cubanbob said...
According to economists the Great Recession started in 2007 and ended in 2009 so Obama and the Democrats can take credit for screwing up the recovery. Obama and the Democrats own this.
And the cause of the Bush Great Recession was the Great Bush Housing Bubble. At least try to pretend that you understand some economics.
1/15/15, 11:46 AM"
No kidding. Just ask your favorite Dems like Barney Frank or Chris Dodd. Or Bill Clinton and Andrew Cuomo. The number of Democrat defendants is pretty lengthy. By the way, you may have noticed that this Administration is once again loosening the restrictions on lending that lead to the very same bubble. Democrats can't rely on only one bubble at a time so as you know they are busy, busy creating another housing bubble along with the current stock market bubble.
But thanks for trying to deflect responsibility for the Democrats on creating the housing bubble to begin with and then blowing the recovery and once again trying to create yet again another housing bubble that will crash again during the next Republican Administration.
Yeah, great economy.
This is serious shit. This country is on the wrong course.
Thanks to the Bush Great Recession. The deepest recession since the Great Depression. Bush owns this one.
As others here correctly point out Bush tried to reign in imprudent lending but was thwarted by Barney Frank and other Democrats. Moreover, nobody, especially the Summer of Recovery Omama administration, expected the recession and ensuing weak economic growth to last as long as it has. Why? Because there is no historical evidence that it should have.
Bad Policy from Obama and the Democrats is why it has lasted as long as it has.
According to economists the Great Recession started in 2007 and ended in 2009 so Obama and the Democrats can take credit for screwing up the recovery. Obama and the Democrats own this.
This reminds me of an old bugs bunny cartoon. Bugs yells yes and Elmer Fudd yells no. They go back and forth until Bugs starts yelling no, so Elmer Fudd changes and starts yelling yes.
An Unreasonable Man starts by saying the economy is great.
But now he's defending the position that Mitt couldn't have done better because the economy is great but it's Bush's fault that the economy isn't great.
Does that make sense to anyone? Yeah, me neither.
Cubanbob: "But thanks for trying to deflect responsibility for the Democrats on creating the housing bubble to begin with and then blowing the recovery and once again trying to create yet again another housing bubble that will crash again during the next Republican Administration"
Not only are the dems recreating the housing bubble, they've worked hard to add the Student Loan Bubble which now stands at about $1T and growing.
On top of that, the deals cut by dems with public sector unions which have already bankrupted a number of cities (including one of my former locales which was the first: Vallejo CA) have created a bubble the likes of which are going to collapse many more cities before it's all over.
http://www.pensiontsunami.com/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/21/detroit-bankruptcy-pension-obligation/2573457/
But who cares, right? Just print more money!!
Zimbabwe/Weimar Republic/Tulip Bulb-fun is just around the corner for all of us!!
And guess what?
ARMeltdown will blame Bush! I wonder what it is that caused Venezuela to be an economic basket case? I don't recall Bush being elected President there, but give ARMeltdown some time and he'll explain how it's all the fault of the Republicans as well.
eric: "But now he's defending the position that Mitt couldn't have done better because the economy is great but it's Bush's fault that the economy isn't great.
Does that make sense to anyone? Yeah, me neither"
The defining rhetorical feature of a leftist is the ability to not only argue utterly contradictory "facts" simultaneously, but to sincerely and truly believe those contradictory assertions simultaneously.
Witness garage yesterday arguing about the "non-existent" bill in the WI legislature that actually existed but was "wrong" because it didn't contain what was claimed to be the "latest changes". And he argued them simultaneously and believed both.
There were more hilarious permutations of the contradictions but they were too numerous to list here.
Bush tried! But he couldn't stop Barney Frank! He was barely even President!
"Bush tried! But he couldn't stop Barney Frank! He was barely even President!"
It required cooperation of the Democrat Congress. But I agree he could have done more.
Interesting. Bush "cooperated" with Democrats, that in the end caused the Great Recession.
That's not what I said.
garage mahal said...
Bush tried! But he couldn't stop Barney Frank! He was barely even President!
The idea that Bush couldn't do whatever he wanted at the start of his presidency is a joke.
To be fair to him, he was somewhat deceived on the housing bubble by doctrinaire Randian Greenspan. Who cares if the little people lose all their capital in a housing bubble? Nonetheless, he was a willing fool because the bubble helped him get reelected.
I guess he could have done an executive order.
2008 (Fail)
2012 (Fail)
Tommy Thompson (Fail)
IRS (Fail)
[snip]
Depends on what you mean by "fail", I suppose. After all, according to you the Republicans were so awesomely terrible that they single-handedly caused the worst recession in generations.
But after just two years of Obama, voters handed the House back to them. Four more years of Obama and they handed back the Senate. All Democrats have left is a single lame-duck President with approval ratings below 50%. You've been neutered.
But you're right, it didn't get rid of Obama. Instead, you're stuck trying to convince voters to elect a Democrat in 2016, when the current Democrat is less popular than George W. Bush.
But don't worry, I'm sure the Republicans will be dumb enough to nominate Romney or Jeb Bush, and save you from yourselves.
Revenant said...
Four more years of Obama and they handed back the Senate.
That would be six in total.
Conflating competence with electoral success is a weak argument. Bush Sr. was vastly more competent than the son.
But you're right, it didn't get rid of Obama. Instead, you're stuck trying to convince voters to elect a Democrat in 2016, when the current Democrat is less popular than George W. Bush.
Obama is at 47%, Bush was at 33%. Obama has eclipsed what Romney was promising voters in 2012. Maybe that's why he is talking about helping the poor?
It will be interesting to see how presidential candidates position themselves on the issues. Republicans are already attempting to take credit for the current economy. Which, of course, is pretty fucking laughable when they have been trying to destroy the economy for 6 years.
The mother of the Great Recession was Janet Reno. Back in the 90s she threatened Bank of America, and others, with legal action if they did not start making more loans to minorities. At that time Forbes published a study that showed that that the default rates for whites and minorities were identical. That meant the banks were applying the same standards to everyone. If they had been holding minorities to a higher standard, minorities would have had a lower default rate. Never-the-less, the banks caved and lowered the standards for everybody, but whined to congress because they could not sell these loans on the secondary market. In stepped Barney Frank, the Banking Queen, and his lover at Fanny May. They rewrote the rules to allow these iffy loans to be bought by Fanny May and others that followed her lead. This started the pump that inflated the bubble. We all know when it burst. Forbes actually predicted it. They just missed the timing by a few years.
Blogger garage mahal said...
"But you're right, it didn't get rid of Obama. Instead, you're stuck trying to convince voters to elect a Democrat in 2016, when the current Democrat is less popular than George W. Bush."
Obama is at 47%, Bush was at 33%. Obama has eclipsed what Romney was promising voters in 2012. Maybe that's why he is talking about helping the poor?
This is something Republicans never seem to understand.
Obama is liked because he doesn't compromise his principles to the Republicans. Instead, he punches back twice as hard.
If a Republican wins in 2016 they should mind this lesson closely. If you want to be liked, don't listen to the media and the Democrats, you need to be like Obama. Punch back twice as hard. Stick to your guns, even when you're wildly, crazily, insanely wrong. Is crazily even a word?
Because that will cause your base to continue to love you and then your fans can post how popular you are on obscure, blogging, websites.
Or, you can choose to compromise, pass lousy legislation like no child left behind, and find that not even your own base likes you even more.
Lesson? Catering to your enemies never finds you any love.
Have a spine, Republican jellyfish!
33% was the base. Everybody else viewed him as a candidate for worst president in US history.
"Four more years of Obama and they handed back the Senate."
That would be six in total.
Yes, "two years" plus "four more years" does, indeed, equal "six years".
Conflating competence with electoral success is a weak argument.
Be sure to point that out if somebody actually does that. :)
you're stuck trying to convince voters to elect a Democrat in 2016, when the current Democrat is less popular than George W. Bush."
Obama is at 47%, Bush was at 33%.
And in today's lesson, we learn about verb tense.
I did not say "Obama is less popular than George Bush was", so comparing Obama's rating now to Bush's 7 years ago is silly. I said that the current President (i.e., Obama) is less popular than George Bush. As in, right now.
The last poll I'm aware of that compared Obama with past Presidents was this Gallup poll from the middle of last year. It puts George W Bush at 52% and Obama at 47%. The latest Gallup polls for Obama have him down to 46%.
So, like I said, the current Democratic president is less popular than George W. Bush.
Revenant said...
So, like I said, the current Democratic president is less popular than George W. Bush.
in a completely meaningless comparison. President's popularity ratings usually improve post-Presisdency.
in a completely meaningless comparison.
The reason it is relevant is that Democrats relied heavily on Bush-bashing -- with considerable success -- in both 2008 and 2012.
With voters liking Bush more than Obama, that puts the Democratic Party on the defensive for 2016. You can't win elections bashing an ex-President when your own, more-recent President is less-well liked.
President's popularity ratings usually improve post-Presisdency
Now that, on the other hand, is irrelevant. Undoubtedly Obama will be better-liked in ten years than he is today, but that doesn't help Democrats are stuck defending his administration in 2016.
While we are on the topic, Obama's ratings are almost identical to Reagan's at the same point of their presidency and have never gone as low as Reagan's did during the lows of his presidency.
I wouldn't bother wasting any crocodile tears on the Dems either. They will regain the senate in two years and the Repubs two presidential front runners are the brother of the worst president in living memory and a guy who's fantasy about fixing the economy was less inspired than the current reality, not to mention that his religion was founded by a pedophile.
I wouldn't bother wasting any crocodile tears on the Dems either.
None of us will!
They will regain the senate in two years
Not hardly likely!
and the Repubs two presidential front runners are the brother of the worst president in living memory
I thought Billy Carter was deceased.
and a guy who's fantasy about fixing the economy was less inspired than the current reality,
Not so fast with that one, idiot child. To the extent that the economy is "fixed" it's by following Romney's principles. But it still needs a lot of work. If inflation and unemployment were calculated today the way they were in the 1970's and 1980's, then up until the advent of (relatively) cheap gas we were in worse shape than we were during Carter's nadir.
not to mention that his religion was founded by a pedophile.
How did Barack Hussein Obama's religion get into your tirade?
"not to mention that his religion was founded by a pedophile."
Not sure which aspect of reasonable this comment represents.
Original Mike said...
"not to mention that his religion was founded by a pedophile."
Not sure which aspect of reasonable this comment represents.
Sorry, I thought Je suis Charlie was still en vogue.
To be fair, it is hard to keep track of the trends. I recently became aware that the Pope is no longer the considered the defender of the free world's values but actually a lily livered socialist.
When did that happen?
What are you talking about?
Post a Comment