And the Nomination Race Begins!

Remove all ads!

Completely agree that they will still vote for Romney. They may hold their nose when they check the box, but as you said, there's no way they will want Obama to get a 2nd term.

 

Hmm, I wonder if there will be a market for "I voted for Romney nose plugs"? This could be my ticket to easy street.

 

In our staff meeting today, our director made the comment, jokingly of course, that "Romney will win the nomination, hands down. Perry is finished, Paul is a nutjob and Gingrich is fat. Fat people are never elected President." Now of course, my director is pretty hefty himself, so he wasn't taking a shot at large people. I think it was his way of hinting that was the reason he wasn't chosen as our new Legal VP, they hired an outsider instead. A tall, skinny guy, just like the rest of the VPs in our company.

 

He's a good man. But he is not radical enough for ideologues in either party, so he won't get far [he ws actually fair enough to work for the Obama administration]. As for Obama - he is a sell-out. It's not that he is too radical, it's just that he is all about Obama. That is typical for a lot of "career" politicians these days.

 

The only exception to that is I really believe people would vote for Christie.

 

Sorry to go up a few posts, but I just remembered I wanted to comment on this. The main reason why Paul hasn't announced he's running as a third party candidate yet - and why I feel that he is extremely unlikely to do so - is because that's basically the dream scenario for the Democrats. Paul on the ticket is going to cost Romney (or whomever the eventual Republican nominee is) way more votes than he will cost Obama. It would be in much the same way that Ross Perot cost George H.W. Bush way more votes than he cost Bill Clinton, and at the same time, poses no real threat of winning himself.

I will agree that Obama's re-election chances are good right now - better than 50% anyway. But to see his re-election as a near certainty overstates his popular support. And of the possible Republican nominees, Romney has a better chance of winning than any of the others.

Obama's approval rating is still a bit under 50% (although it's an improvement from the low of 43% he hit over the summer). Historically, presidents with an approval rating in the upper 40s - as Obama is now - win re-election more than they lose. But certainly not ALL presidents with an approval rating in the high 40s win. Typically, you need to have an approval rating around 53% to be a lock to win re-election. If your approval rating is under 45%, you're more likely to lose than win. So Obama's current approval rating still places him in an area where he could win or lose - and the eventual outcome is far from certain.

And of course there is a lot that can happen between now and the election, most of which has to do with the economy. While we can conclude up front that there will still be parts of the economy hurting come November, and that unemployment will still be uncharacteristically high, exactly where we are will have a lot of impact on the election. If we have a double dip recession, and unemployment climbs back up to double digits, Obama is in real trouble. On the other hand, if the economy continues the slow improvement we've seen over the last year, and unemployment drops to around 7%, then Obama's in good shape.

So right now, I'd place Obama's odds at winning re-election at about 2 in 3. Certainly the favorite, and more likely to occur than not, but I would be hesitant in calling it a foregone conclusion.

 

Wow, great post Aldeth. Reminds me of the old days here.

Well, no - that isn't why Paul hasn't declared as a third party yet. He's still running for the Republican nomination. Once he is denied that, it'll be a different story. Especially if he and his supporters continue to feel they've been shanked by the Republican establishment. He is too old to attempt another run in 4 years. This is his last shot.

And while it's true that a Paul ticket would syphon votes almost exclusively from Romney, making him a spoiler, he may not care. As I said before, Paul is a crank. Just like Ross Perot was a crank and Ralph Nader was a huge, HUGE crank. Cranks care less about actually getting elected and they certainly could care less if they're considered a spoiler. It's more about getting their platform of ideas elevated to a top-tier audience. As nutty as I believe Ralph Nader to be, I don't think he ever honestly believed he had a shot at actually becoming President. And if their candidacy means they spoil an election, they don't consider it their fault - to them it's a consequence of our flawed 2-party system. Both Perot and Nader dismissed the "spoiler" charge on essentially those grounds.

Depending on a number of factors I give Paul about a 1 in 4 chance of deciding to go independent. This is not something I am hoping for, by the way, and I don't think it's something most Democrats are hoping for, either. Sure, it would mean a guaranteed win - but a tainted one. Whenever there's a spoiler candidate there's a cloud of illegitimacy that hangs over the victor. It certainly did for the first year or so of both Clinton's and GWB's first terms, and it would hang over Obama's entire second term. I think Obama wants to win fair and square like he did last time.

Possible caveat: if Paul does indeed become a spoiler and thus a Republican pariah, he may not care for himself. But it would tarnish the future ambitions of his son, Rand Paul. To me this is the most likely reason why he would/will step back after he loses the Republican nom. No one wants to vote for Benedict Arnold, Jr.

I would say I'm cautiously optimistic. The way I see it there are a number of factors in Obama's favor that can't be overlooked.

1) Obama's approval numbers have been better than Reagan's at virtually every point of their respective Presidencies so far. 2) Mitt Romney is a far weaker candidate than John Kerry, and Obama a far stronger President than Bush - comparative to that time. 3) The economy has slowly but steadily been improving for well over a year now. Today the unemployment rate dropped again to 8.5%. Few voters are going to want to dick with that. 4) He's decimated al Qaeda, he succeeded in getting Osama and got us out of Iraq on schedule.

I could list about a dozen more, but the punchline is, he's doing a lot better than his poll numbers might suggest. Considering the hyper-polarized political climate we have to deal with now, the high 40's are pretty damn good.

Of course - none of that will matter if the economy takes a nosedive at any point in the next 9 months. No matter how often it gets said, people never seem to get that the President has very little control over the health of the economy. But it is an unfortunate fact that Presidential approval often hinges on it. If the economy continues to climb at it's current pace, he's almost certainly in the clear. But it's a delicate situation. The European debt crisis, for example, may go all to hell any day now and that will have huge ripple effects on the American economy. So really, if anyone screws Obama it won't be Mitt Romney - it'll be Greece and Spain.

I'd place Obama's odds at closer to 3 in 4 - but all in all I think you and I are on the same page.

And for the record - I said that I believe the Republican establishment sees Obama's reelection as a foregone conclusion. If they didn't, they'd have tried harder to get someone serious. There is no way in hell that Mitt Romney is their fifth choice, let alone their first. This is clown shoes time.

 

Listening to the candidates reminds me of why I hate American elections. There is no talk of issues. There is only "me good, you bad. Me fix, you break." This goes for both parties. Any stance you take that is even slightly out of the norm will cause everyone else to straw-man you to death. Want to relax patently unjust drug laws? You will let criminals run around on our street! Believe the rich should pay more in taxes? You're a socialist who will let lazy people leech of the system! Relax the military budget? You want terrorists to go free and attack us! I've seen more honest discussion in a WWE argument. We get what we deserve in terms of inane politicians when we let them distort such a vastly important dialogue in the name of their self interest. There's a reason the PR industry gives an award for the best campaign. That's all it's about.

 

Let me tell you something brotha... I come to Sorcerer's Place and I hear the chants of the thousands and thousands of Aldeth-maniacs. And then I think about my 19-inch political pundit python biceps. And I think about the Mallet O' Thinking leg drop off the ropes. And I just got one question for you damedog. Wathca goin' do? Watcha goin' when Aldeth-mania runs wild on you?

Actually that was the part that I thought was the foregone conclusion.

That's a point I never even considered, but a very valid one. I also totally agree that this is his last shot. Hell, he's older than dirt now. The guy's first run in the House of Representative dates back to the Carter administration. He has to be well into his 70s - I'd guess he's about as old as McCain, and almost certainly older than when McCain ran 4 years ago.

I think we have different definitions as to who/what groups we consider to be the Republican establishment. According to published reports, Mitt Romney has received more donations and endorsements than the rest of the Republican nominees combined. Especially as regards donations, there is no one even in his rear view mirror. Perry is in second, but he has less than half of what Romney has. And he has considerably more than any of the Republican candidates had at a similar point in the 2008 election. That to me states that he is very well connected, and has at least some establishment support.

That, of course, can be argued one of two ways. Either 1) It's genuine support and the Republican establishment thinks that Romney can actually beat Obama or 2) It's feigned support, and the Republican establishment doesn't think it has any good options, and are throwing endorsements and money Romney's way to avoid an embarrassment like nominating someone like Michelle Bachmann. (It sounds laughable now, but she was actually considered a threat not that long ago. She even won the Ames straw poll a while back.)

 

Interesting system. We have 10 parties to choose from. what a mess it would be if those all had pre-pre election. I both hope and expect Obama to win.

But you are talking about the repo's. People here expect Romney to win. No one gave Bachmann a change so no lost tears for her. I think the second state will give Romney enough momentum to stay in front and give Obama a run for his money.

 

I think it smacks of a system in ancient times when each tribe chose a champion and the two village chieftains would battle to the death. The primary is picking your champion part of it.

 

Romney has a ton of establishment support. That doesn't mean he's their first choice and/or stands the best chance of beating Obama when looking beyond the context of this race. A Chris Christy or a Marco Rubio or a Jeb Bush or a Nikki Haley would be a far more formidable GOP frontrunner, but all declined to run against Obama. Romney just happens to be in the fortunate position of having the best shot of the clowns running. If any of the aforementioned GOPers were in the race, I guarantee you Romney wouldn't be the frontrunner. All 4 of them? Romney'd be 5th or 6th and Perry, Huntsmen, Pawlenty and probably even Paul wouldn't have even bothered. Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich and Santorum are all delusional enough to have run no matter what, though.

So Romney's more of a longshot than they'd like – and they really don't like him – but it's a much better shot than simply rolling over, and they would never or could never do that. They have to support somebody. Romney gets all the establishment support that he does simply because there's no one else for it to go to. It was the establishment, by and large, who coaxed Perry into the race mid-cycle, when they saw that Romney's appeal wasn't exactly catching fire. But that enthusiasm dwindled after his very weak performance in the first few debates. So they're sticking with Romney. Since he's displayed little evidence these past 4 years of his capacity for independent thought, I suppose they figure at least he'll be easy to control once he's in, so there's something for them to work with.

They're makin' lemonade, basically.

 

According to a Rasmussen poll released today, Romney is now in the lead in South Carolina as well. Link to article. He has also pulled even with Newt Gingrich in Florida polls released this week. As previously noted, he's a lock to win New Hampshire. If he turns in wins in all of them, the nomination race is D-U-N. Especially considering that the only two other primaries before Super Tuesday (which won't be super in this scenario), will be Michigan and Nevada, where Romney is expected to do very well (raised in Michigan, significant Mormon population in Nevada).

It certainly appears the question of who the establishment is going to support is rather moot. It's going to be Romney. I suppose an alternative question would be is Romney actually going to pick one of these other jokers to be his VP? McCain picked an unknown candidate in Sarah Palin, but typically the VP selected is more of a mainstream name, and oftentimes someone who failed to win the nomination. You also tend to go different in your VP selection. In other words, you pick someone that will shore up a perceived weakness in the person heading the ticket, which in the case of Romney sure sounds like an Evangelical Christian is going to be a prerequisite (sorry Santorum).

 

Aldeth, especially, may find this of interest:

The Newt people suddenly sound like a bunch of liberals.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45911039/ns/politics-decision_2012/

 

It is a bit like the re-election of Clinton. Bob Dole was resurrected so no other candidate could get hurt.

Has a politician survived a presidential election loss?

 

Iirc Nixon did.

 

I agree, but...we all know how well moderates fair in the Republican party these days.

"Wingnut" attachment that pleased the core party faithful to no end, but probably cost him the general election.

 

I just read that Rick Perry wants to re-invade Iraq:

What, what, what? WTF! I almost spilled my coffee when I read that. That's BS on several levels. For one there is what Perry said and then there is the way the reporter has framed it.

Perry is putting it as if it was a decision by Obama to do so. Not just nutty, but misleading, and probably deliberately so, although with Perry, one can never be sure that he isn't just crazy enough to believe what he says. The reporter is breathlessly framing it in the traditional Republicans vs. Democrats dichotomy, as if this was a football match (exciting!), not bothering to concern himself with (boooooring!) matters of factuality. Apparently, since he is reporting on domestic politics, historical context, or knowledge of the subject matter are optional. Infotainment all the way.

Well, it shouldn't come as a surprise that things are not as both Perry and that dolt of a reporter have put it. The 2008 Status of Forces agreement that set a withdrawal date for US troops from Iraq was signed by George W. Bush when Obama wasn't even in office. The Iraqis in these negotiations outsmarted the US at every turn.

Bush lost to Maliki, and to be frank, Bush never really had much of a chance once the US accomplished 'Operation Purple Finger'. In a tribal society without democratic tradition, one man one vote led (and that was predicted to Bush by experts on the region) to the dominance of the dominant demographic group, and, alas, it did, and that group happened to be the Iraqi Shiites, who make up some 70% of the population, and whose leadership had spent the time during the reign of Saddam in Iranian exile. Sympathies for Iran (you guys saved our lives!), kinship (in 20 years or so in exile, people marry), religious kinship and good relations as a result of the asylum they got? Who could have known!

In withdrawing, Obama executes an inherited policy. Perry doesn't bother. Nor does the majority of his Republican co-competitors for that matter. Truth has no role in the deliberations that led to the adoption of the meme 'Obama abandoned, lost Iraq'. Expect that to become a current theme from the right wing in their attacks on Obama.*

So Perry is being very, very unhappy with the US, a superpower after all, not having dictated (apparently seriously believing they could, and never mind that they didn't) the outcome in Iraq (still no Hashemite King?), and laments that Iran does have great influence there.

The SOFA between Iraq and the US to withdraw is an international agreement, but Perry apparently feels he isn't bound by it? Right. What do the word and the signature of a US president mean anyway. Worse, the nuttiness of American politics, the sway the pro-Israelis hold among them and the vague wording of the 2002 authorisation to use military force would probably allow him legally, at least in the US domestic sphere, to do so if elected - leaving aside that the US this time would be fighting the Shia majority as not just an insurgency but a genuine and full fledged national uprising, and not just an uppity Sunni minority (who caused trouble enough, despite their disadvantage in numbers). But apparently, Perry doesn't mind the prospective carnage - in his mind, apparently, this re-invasion would reliably fix everything that went wrong with the last one. How was that? "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Lost on Perry. Startlingly, Perry maintains that sending US troops back into Iraq, in violation of the SOFA, would not be an invasion this time (because ...?). I have a hunch that the Iraqis will surely not see it his way.

And they call Ron Paul a nut? In that competition? For heaven's sake, Paul is the only candidate in the Republican race who isn't proudly and eagerly boasting that he can't wait to kill people and bomb places in order to appear 'hawkish'. Ron Paul is also iirc the only one among the Republican candidates who opposes torture and emphasises limits on executive power, all of which is presumably testifying to his supposed radicalism.

Next to Perry, let alone Bachmann, Ron Paul looks like Yoda. His foreign policy, short of leaving the UN, is basically prudent; it is (apparently unacceptably) peaceful at least. It's his economic policy that is lunacy IMO, but that isn't much of a problem. Paul knows he is unelectable. IMO, he prepares the way for his son, and basically raises awareness of the question over the role of government in America's daily lives. Ron Paul is a persuader, a man of ideas as much as ideals, and a remarkably successful one. He has a substantial following in the GOP that is persistently being marginalised. A new party forming?

* Another new wedge issue will probably be Israel. Republicans fall over themselves, and that is the other meme, to denounce Obama for being allegedly hostile towards Israel. Reality has nothing to do with that either. Obama is pretty much completely supine towards (pro-)Israeli interests, and that despite an unusual and unusually blatant impertinence on the part of the Netanyahu government and their American partisans that would make ordinary people spiteful. Those 29 bought and paid for standing ovations, a spectacle worthy of Stalinist Russia (when delegates clapped for hours, since stopping might indicate lack of devotion, and might get one marked for the Gulag (or, in Congress, for being targeted by AIPAC)), put an and to possible attempts at brokering peace. I suspect behind this line of attack the battle not just for (Armageddonite Christian and conservative Jewish) voters but in particular for campaign contributions. But I digress.

 

I would at least discreetly check with some manufacturers, if I had the funds.