Nobody Likes Mitt Romney
Who will be the next preferred not-Romney?
Steve West | November 18, 2011
Gingrich isn't capable of overtaking a Democratic surge that's looming, Ron Paul has gained an unfair reputation of an also-ran, Johnson favors legalizing marijuana which is still devisive amongst his own party let alone the nation, Roemer been out of politics so long that younger voters might confuse him with a slightly befuddled old guy who accidentally got in the race and Santorum's poll numbers are abysmal. Huntsman at 51, is a young voter's candidate with international experience as ambassador to China. I'm still reserving my own vote for now.
Tony Peters | November 18, 2011
Senator Rick Santorum's problem is that he is better known for his bigotry than anything else.....I hope Huntsman is the one who surpasses Mitt the shit
Ryan Dunn | November 18, 2011
I think Jon Stewart was right, Republicans are stuck with Mitt Romney as their nominee.
Erik Bates | November 18, 2011
[hidden by request]
Scott Hardie | November 19, 2011
Santorum strikes me as the most likable of the non-Romneys that I mentioned, that is, likable to the conservative base. Bigotry plays well when encoded in politically-correct "dog whistle" phrases, and Santorum is pretty good at those. I think poorly of the man for the same reason Dan Savage does, but he does strike me as more mainstream than Johnson, more conservative than Huntsman, and more heavyweight than Roemer. He's amazingly hung on this long in last place among the major candidates, so he seems overdue for some attention.
Paul seems to be stuck with the same repulsion factor that Romney is: No matter how well he does in polls or how ideal he seems for the job (or how fervent his fan base is, unlike Romney's), the conservative base just plain doesn't want him. I don't believe that most people reject him because he's a "wingnut" or "fringe" candidate; he's way too smart and articulate and experienced for that label to stick with anyone who's paying attention. And I don't buy that it's because the media is ignoring him; his name is tossed out as often as the rest. But I couldn't put my finger on why he just can't seem to break through, when friggin' Gingrich manages the feat.
Samir Mehta | November 19, 2011
[hidden by request]
Scott Hardie | November 20, 2011
Good summary of Gingrich. I think the right has plenty of trouble with his skeezy personal life, too. Like Romney, he's currently being haunted by reasonable, level-headed statements he made over the last decade, where he had the bad fortune to sound like a moderate.
Scott Hardie | November 23, 2011
The Wall Street Journal ran a whopper of an op-ed column yesterday. It may be written by a liberal, but the WSJ is one of the most consistently conservative, anti-Obama newspapers in the business.
The essay's main argument? That Barack Obama should not seek re-election because he cannot govern the country effectively for another four years. And why can't he govern effectively? Not because he has "failed" to get this gridlock-obsessed, filibuster-loving Congress to do their jobs. Not because he doesn't have the support of the American people, who consistently rate him poorly but might vote for him against a weak alternative from the GOP. No, he can't govern effectively because he could only win re-election by running a negative campaign, and that would so anger the conservative right that they'd stop working with him.
Ummmm... Where do I start pointing out how ludicrous that is? Is it that the right already refuses to work with him, so what would change? Is it that a successful GOP candidate would also have to run a very negative, anti-Obama campaign which would somehow not have the same effect on the liberal left? Is it that negative campaign ads are part and parcel of politics and nobody involved is actually hurt by them, except to the degree that they affect electability? Is it that many staunch liberals feel like Obama has been too weak and afraid to stand up to Republicans already, and would cheer him going on the offensive for a change? Jesus this is boneheaded in so many ways.
If President Obama were to withdraw, he would put great pressure on the Republicans to come to the table and negotiate-especially if the president singularly focused in the way we have suggested on the economy, job creation, and debt and deficit reduction. By taking himself out of the campaign, he would change the dynamic from who is more to blame-George W. Bush or Barack Obama?-to a more constructive dialogue about our nation's future.Hahaha, yes. If Obama dropped out of the race, all Republican candidates would immediately cease to blame him at every turn for the country's every problem, and stop scoring easy points against his poor record and low approval ratings. And rainbows would fly out of Newt Gingrich's ass.
The zaniest part of the article is its assertion that if Obama dropped out, a much better candidate, and eventually a much better president, would take his place in the campaign and triumph against the GOP: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Not only is Mrs. Clinton better positioned to win in 2012 than Mr. Obama, but she is better positioned to govern if she does. Given her strong public support, she has the ability to step above partisan politics, reach out to Republicans, change the dialogue, and break the gridlock in Washington.Hahahahahahaha... Yes... There's no way the GOP would dare besmirch the honor of the universally respected Ms. Clinton, or refuse to capitulate to her policies as president. Hahahahahaha...
Tony Peters | November 23, 2011
I want whatever he's smoking
Samir Mehta | November 23, 2011
[hidden by request]
Tony Peters | November 23, 2011
In order for democrats to succeed government has to function......in order for republicans to succeed government can't function
Steve West | December 4, 2011
The Des Moines Register ran their poll and found Gingrich in the lead by a sizable margin despite running no ads in the state. Second place went to (gasp!) Ron Paul. No Mitts mentioned until third.
Scott Hardie | January 28, 2012
I can't believe that I wrote above that Santorum is "amazingly hung" and nobody pointed it out.
I feel slightly vindicated that my predicted Santorum surge came to pass. Now he's welcome to return to the semi-obscurity that better suits him.
Paul is toast. That he hasn't conceded yet would be for any other candidate a sign of delusion, but to Paul's supporters might seem like a mark of character. Whether he acknowledges it or not, he's done. And it's too bad.
Romney and Gingrich are both so very unappealing. But really, is there any major complaint leveled against Romney that does not also apply to Gingrich? They say Romney is rich, shady, a lifelong politician, an insider, inauthentic, out of touch, someone who doesn't care about regular people. Is Gingrich not every one of those things? Gingrich has this amazing Teflon quality where nothing sticks to him. He pledges family values while practicing adultery, and nobody can call him on it. He pledges fiscal restraint while promising moon bases, and nobody can call him on it. The man's clearly a gifted debater. I've heard it said by analysts that debates matter little in an election, but they're obviously changing this one in Gingrich's favor.
My bet's still on Romney getting the nomination. Money usually wins elections, and Romney's campaign has far more of it. (Obama's has far more than all Republicans combined.) But Gingrich has appeal with, shall we say, certain demographics here in Florida, and has a good chance of turning the tide. We'll see.
Aaron Shurtleff | January 28, 2012
Do I get a pass if I point out that you just said "Santorum surge"? And if you can mention Dan Savage above, you know why that just sounds so so wrong. :P
Any how, being the horrible politically uninterested person (or I try to be...it's hard to do), I have to agree with Samir way way way above. I am starting to think neither party wants to field a "good candidate", just to have the "least worst candidate". I can't get excited about any of the Republican field right now, and 4 more years of Obama aren't exactly firing me up either. I might have to "throw away" my vote for Ron Paul too...assuming he doesn't get the Republican nod and he runs as an independent, which is the only way I think I would get the chance to do such a thing.
"my predicted Santorum surge came to pass"...that's just nasty.
Tony Peters | January 28, 2012
Butt Juice was gonna flop once people realized that no one but the bigoted base would vote for him. I like Ron Paul, I don't agree with a lot of what he has to say but he's the only one who hasn't pandered to the crowd. Gingrich isn't necessarily a gifted debater he's really just a bully who uses the crowd as weapon....take away the crowd and he flops. If a republican is going to be elected I feel much better about "Liberal Romney" than "Newt the Historian" Remember Mitt the mormon republican got elected Governor of Massachusetts. I think Mitt has a better chance in the general than Newt but I don't discount the stupid factor Newt could still very easily end up as the candidate. For the Future of the GOP that outcome is probably the best. Newt's failure would chase the lunatics back into their holes for another 100 years
Aaron Shurtleff | January 28, 2012
Is anyone else bothered by the attack ads on tv that are supported by no one candidate, but instead by some group? I wish I could recall the name of the group. At least Mitt Romney has (for the ones that I have seen) put his name on the attack ads that his campaign has come out with. I don't know. It bugs me.
Tony Peters | January 28, 2012
There is a court case headed to the supremes that is based on historical evidence in a plains state (North Dakota maybe) that unlimited business contributions to political campaigns is a problem. The Citizens United suit lacked any such evidence much to the dismay of real people. Much as I dislike the end result of Citizens United they proved their case better than the Feds did and on the points of law that were referenced they won.
Scott Hardie | January 28, 2012
Aaron: It's a result of the recent Citizens United verdict by the Supreme Court, if you aren't aware of it. They ruled that since corporations are people (made up of people), and people's right to free speech is protected, and since money (political donations) equals speech, then the government can't prevent corporations from making unlimited political donations. I think most of us would agree with only one of those three premises, but as Tony mentioned, the plaintiffs made good arguments.
Anyway, while individual candidates can still only be given so much by each donor and are limited as to what they can say in a commercial, super PAC organizations can receive unlimited donations and do whatever they want with the money, which is where all of these "unaffiliated" ads come from. A candidate can create his or her own super PAC, and that super PAC can run ads that really help the candidate's campaign, as long as the candidate doesn't directly supervise it. This isn't just absurd; it's a danger to democracy. Hopefully it won't last.
Steve West | January 28, 2012
Five Thirty Eight predicts Romney almost unbeatable in a semi-runaway in Florida.
Scott Hardie | January 17, 2013
Further evidence of the Wall Street Journal staff living in a hilarious fantasy-land: They think a single parent with two kids struggling to make ends meet would have a salary of about $260,000, among other laughers in this graphic.
Erik Bates | January 17, 2013
[hidden by request]
Erik Bates | January 17, 2013
[hidden by request]
Tony Peters | February 4, 2013
where you live makes all the difference in the world, as my wife and I contemplate living in DC permanently and try to decide what will work for us I am left to wonder just how correct Mitt was. 1000sq ft house on an lot less than 2000sq ft for 1.2 million... not living there, I don't really want to rent with 2 cats and a dog, we want to be close to the park for said dog and also near transit but that of course makes costs prohibitive, I am sure we will end up with a fixer upper and I will end up building a studio (addition?) in the back yard and figuring out a way to wire it but compared to what we have now it will certainly be waaaaay less
Want to participate? Please create an account a new account or log in.
Scott Hardie | November 18, 2011
Michele Bachmann was the first major candidate that Republicans preferred to Mitt Romney. Then, after a few weeks at the top of polls, Rick Perry took her place. After a few weeks in the lead, his poor debating let Herman Cain take the lead. Now scandal has dragged Cain down, and Newt Gingrich of all people has climbed to the top of the non-Romney polls, where he can be expected to stay for 2-3 weeks before being replaced if the pattern holds. If Republicans are turning to Gingrich, they really don't want Romney, which gives such hope to once-marginal candidates that Tim Pawlenty must be kicking himself right now. Who will succeed Gingrich next in this game of duck-duck-goose before the primaries start in January?