Gingrich is winning the primary...

[Ravariel]

...for Romney.

And he knows it. The question is: why? The Ging is certainly the smartest, most politically-savvy member of the GOP's clown car, so there's no way he can not see that by staying in the race, he is guaranteeing a Romney win. After Florida, the writing was on the wall. Gingrich didn't have the money, organization, or persona to be able to take the nomination. But he had to see that a resurgent Santorum would be able to motivate the Republican base much more than the very centrist Romney. So by spitting the base, he sees to it that Romney is getting plurality wins (Gingrich and Santorum had over 50% of the vote combined in Michigan and Ohio.... who do you think Gingrich's voters would have turned to if he had not been in the race?).

My belief is that Gingrich either fears the nomination of Santorum as an auto-lose for the Republicans (RNC analysts have said that he would lose 35 states, creating one of the largest landslide victories in recent memory), or as an even scarier president, and is staying in the race in order to put up a much more palatable nominee.

I also believe that he may be gunning for the VP nomination. VPs generally have much more leeway in their verbiage than presidents. Presidents often use them to shore up support among their base for the general election, and to throw the verbal hand grenades that they can't. And we all know that Gingrich can chuck bombs. Much has been said about Marco Rubio and Chris Christie, and even Jeb Bush as VP noms, to lock in an 8-year GOP control of the White House, but I don't think any of them will take the job. I think they see that taking the VP nom this year, and running with what is likely to be a failed campaign (Obama's favorables are above 50%, and he has a double-digit lead in 3 important swing states; Ohio, Michigan and Virginia, that could cripple the GOP strategy) would harm their chances in 2016, when a clean slate will give them a much better shot. Gingrich knows his time is limited (he's no spring Chicken, and, like Cheney, I think he'd step aside if a Romney/Gingrich ticket were to go the full 8 years), but wants to do as much as he can before the end of his career.

Thoughts?

[Angry-Hatter]

At 6 minutes ago, Ravariel wrote: ...for Romney.

And he knows it. The question is: why? The Ging is certainly the smartest, most politically-savvy member of the GOP's clown car, so there's no way he can not see that by staying in the race, he is guaranteeing a Romney win. After Florida, the writing was on the wall. Gingrich didn't have the money, organization, or persona to be able to take the nomination. But he had to see that a resurgent Santorum would be able to motivate the Republican base much more than the very centrist Romney. So by spitting the base, he sees to it that Romney is getting plurality wins (Gingrich and Santorum had over 50% of the vote combined in Michigan and Ohio.... who do you think Gingrich's voters would have turned to if he had not been in the race?).

I've actually seen some polling of people's second choices, and interestingly enough, more than half of Big Head's supporters prefer Slimy Suit over Poopstain, and about half of Poopstain's supporters also prefer Slimy Suit over Big Head. So either of them dropping out might not necessarily consolidate the extreme right-wing vote in one candidate.

As to why he's staying in? I'd say that there is a reason for his head being so big. Remember what he said in an interview right after the polls started swinging his way in Iowa? "I'm going to be the nominee", like it was already over. How did that turn out Mr. Third Runner Up?

My belief is that Gingrich either fears the nomination of Santorum as an auto-lose for the Republicans (RNC analysts have said that he would lose 35 states, creating one of the largest landslide victories in recent memory), or as an even scarier president, and is staying in the race in order to put up a much more palatable nominee.

When your approval ratings are 25% favorable and 63% unfavorable, it's kind of hard to make the case that you're the more electable candidate. I kind of doubt that an Obama/Santorum matchup is going to be that much more lopsided compared to an Obama/Gingrich matchup, it's Democratic landslide either way.

I also believe that he may be gunning for the VP nomination. VPs generally have much more leeway in their verbiage than presidents. Presidents often use them to shore up support among their base for the general election, and to throw the verbal hand grenades that they can't. And we all know that Gingrich can chuck bombs.

No way. Not a snowball's chance in hell that Gingrich is the VP, especially if Romney is on the top of the ticket. They hate eachother, but even if they were willing to get beyond that, Gingrich isn't going to add anything to the ticket other than dead weight; his home state is Georgia, which is already solidly Republican, and he's not going to magically become more popular than he is now just because he's not on the top of the ticket. The other potential candidates you mentioned, Rubio, Christie, and Bush, are much more popular than Gingrich, and from states that could potentially be in play in the general election, so I'd say they are definitely going to be on a short list.

Much has been said about Marco Rubio and Chris Christie, and even Jeb Bush as VP noms, to lock in an 8-year GOP control of the White House, but I don't think any of them will take the job. I think they see that taking the VP nom this year, and running with what is likely to be a failed campaign (Obama's favorables are above 50%, and he has a double-digit lead in 3 important swing states; Ohio, Michigan and Virginia, that could cripple the GOP strategy) would harm their chances in 2016, when a clean slate will give them a much better shot.

I totally disagree. Sarah Palin looked like a solid contender for the 2012 race for much of the last 3 years and even had the lead in several early polls, and she, much like the rest of the McCain campaign, was a train wreck in 2008. Rubio is head and shoulders above Palin in intelligence (not saying much, but still), he appeals to the same Tea Party wing that Palin does, and he's a hispanic candidate, and very telegenic. Even if the Romney campaign crashes and burns against Obama, the exposure of a national campaign would make Rubio a very strong contender for the 2016 race. The same holds more or less true for Christie and Bush as well, but I don't think they're as likely to get the nod. Rubio is it if Romney is the nominee.

Gingrich knows his time is limited (he's no spring Chicken, and, like Cheney, I think he'd step aside if a Romney/Gingrich ticket were to go the full 8 years), but wants to do as much as he can before the end of his career.

As unlikely as 8 years of Romney/Gingrich would be, yeah, in 8 years, he'd be as old as Ronald Reagan was when he left the Presidency, so a septuagenarian Gingrich running for President doesn't seem that likely. Although who knows? I've read some rumours about Joe Biden eyeing a run in 2016, even though he'd be 74 on his inaguration day if he was elected, so maybe you shouldn't count out the old-timers too soon.

[Ravariel]

At 3 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: I've actually seen some polling of people's second choices, and interestingly enough, more than half of Big Head's supporters prefer Slimy Suit over Poopstain, and about half of Poopstain's supporters also prefer Slimy Suit over Big Head. So either of them dropping out might not necessarily consolidate the extreme right-wing vote in one candidate.

Hmmm... possibly. I'd like to see those polls, especially if they're fairly recent. Definitely would put a better detail on things.

As to why he's staying in? I'd say that there is a reason for his head being so big. Remember what he said in an interview right after the polls started swinging his way in Iowa? "I'm going to be the nominee", like it was already over. How did that turn out Mr. Third Runner Up?

While his ego is impressive, and he may (also) be doing this to forward a platform (i.e. "omg, the media is so mean to me!"), he's also a great political tactician (if a bit bridge-burney). He has to know the math. He can only lose 21 more delegates before it's impossible for him to win outright. He is nearly 200 delegates behind Romney, and in a virtual tie with Santorum. He will only carry states which would already be red in the General, and will lose in all of the swings by a fair margin. This is known. Ergo his remaining in the race is either pride or strategy, or a mixture of the two. Even if his votes would split between Santorum and Romney, his endorsement of Santorum could give the sweater-vest the momentum he needs to actually challenge... however I don't think his endorsement of Romney would change the numbers much. Without him in the race, the anti-Romney/establishment crowd could galvanize onto one candidate and possibly send them into the convention effectively tied.

When your approval ratings are 25% favorable and 63% unfavorable, it's kind of hard to make the case that you're the more electable candidate. I kind of doubt that an Obama/Santorum matchup is going to be that much more lopsided compared to an Obama/Gingrich matchup, it's Democratic landslide either way.

Romney can tack center and challenge normally blue states. Santorum cannot. Most red states will stay red. With Romney as the challenger, Obama will need to spend money and time on places that should be democratic strongholds, like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and possibly even California. Granted, I believe that Romney will eventually fall far short, and lose by double-digits (and the fallout from that could descend the GOP even further into abject insanity, but that's for another time). However, a Santorum nom would solidify many Blue states for Obama and allow him to run hard in most of the purple ones.

No way. Not a snowball's chance in hell that Gingrich is the VP, especially if Romney is on the top of the ticket. They hate eachother, but even if they were willing to get beyond that, Gingrich isn't going to add anything to the ticket other than dead weight; his home state is Georgia, which is already solidly Republican, and he's not going to magically become more popular than he is now just because he's not on the top of the ticket. The other potential candidates you mentioned, Rubio, Christie, and Bush, are much more popular than Gingrich, and from states that could potentially be in play in the general election, so I'd say they are definitely going to be on a short list.

Gingrich, unlike most VP noms, wouldn't be there to grab one or two swing states. He would be on the ticket to motivate and rile up the base of the party, that part which has stayed away from Romney by nearly 60% in the primaries. If Romney doesn't have someone the tea-partiers and evangelicals can drool over, then he'll lose from miserable GOP voter turnout alone. Rubio is probably a better choice for Romney, as he deflects from Romney's weakness with Latinos and Border states, and has some star power that will help liven things up. However, his star is already rising well enough for him to have a good shot at the '16 nom, so taking a losing VP nod would likely be a poor move for him.

Palin is actually a great example of this. Had she simply stayed in office in Alaska, and lent her voice to conventions and talk shows, I think she would have had an excellent opportunity this year. But because she was thrust onto a far brighter national stage before she was ready, it turned into a trainwreck that relegated her to Fox News and reality TV. Her polls early on were about as prescient as early polls usually are. Obama, Bush Jr., and Bill Clinton were nowhere on the radar of the early polls in the years that they won.

As unlikely as 8 years of Romney/Gingrich would be, yeah, in 8 years, he'd be as old as Ronald Reagan was when he left the Presidency, so a septuagenarian Gingrich running for President doesn't seem that likely. Although who knows? I've read some rumours about Joe Biden eyeing a run in 2016, even though he'd be 74 on his inaguration day if he was elected, so maybe you shouldn't count out the old-timers too soon.

Clinton, Cuomo, and O'Malley may have something to say about that in '16, and it's likely that if Biden does run, a lot of the troubles that plagued McCain will plague him as well, in regards to age. Regardless, I expect that many of the top guns in the party will avoid any attachment to Romney in preparation for (barring a remarkable economic recovery worldwide) what is likely to be a solid shot at taking the White House in 2016.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 6 hours ago, Ravariel wrote: Hmmm... possibly. I'd like to see those polls, especially if they're fairly recent. Definitely would put a better detail on things.

Nate Silver did an analysis of this based on hypothetical one-on-one matchups in January, looking at a South Carolina poll from PPP.

But speak of the devil: this morning Nate posted an article about this vey subject that suggests that Santorum actually could gain a majority of Gingrich's supporters while Romney and Paul split the rest, so now I'm not so sure anymore.

While his ego is impressive, and he may (also) be doing this to forward a platform (i.e. "omg, the media is so mean to me!"), he's also a great political tactician (if a bit bridge-burney). He has to know the math. He can only lose 21 more delegates before it's impossible for him to win outright. He is nearly 200 delegates behind Romney, and in a virtual tie with Santorum.

Wait, how are you getting to that number? Gingrich needs 1031 more delegates to put him over the magic number of 1144 for the nomination, and there are 1757 delegates left to be won, so he could theoretically still win if he got about 58% of the remaining delegates. Romney needs another 825 delegates (about 47%) to win, Santorum would need 1070 (60%), and Paul would somehow have to scrape together 1121 delegates (64%) to become the nominee.

So, although unlikely, any one of them could still win. But, if Romney doesn't get the 825 delegates he needs while none of the other candidates win a majority either, then we get a brokered convention where anything could happen. In fact, this has been the strategy of the Paul campaign all along; to amass enough delegates to become a power broker at the convention. This might be something that Gingrich is taking into account as well, and maybe he thinks that if he finishes a strong second in the delagate count, then he's got a chance at the convention.

Romney can tack center and challenge normally blue states. Santorum cannot. Most red states will stay red. With Romney as the challenger, Obama will need to spend money and time on places that should be democratic strongholds, like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and possibly even California. Granted, I believe that Romney will eventually fall far short, and lose by double-digits (and the fallout from that could descend the GOP even further into abject insanity, but that's for another time). However, a Santorum nom would solidify many Blue states for Obama and allow him to run hard in most of the purple ones.

I mostly agree with you that Romney has a better chance of winning the swing states, but no way in hell is he winning in Massachusetts or California. There was a reason for Romney not running for re-election as Governor of Massachusetts: his approval rating was steadily slipping, and he would very likely have lost by double digits if he ran, and if that happened he wouldn't have been able to run for President in '08. Recent polling in MA is showing Romney trailing by 15-20 points. Massachusetts isn't going red anytime soon.

California is the same, Romney is 20-25 points behind, which is about the same percentage that McCain ended up with in '08. He MIGHT be able to whittle down Obama's winning margin slightly if he picks Marco Rubio as his running mate, due to California's large latino population, but it's not going to be enough. Until further notice, California remains dark, dark blue.

Pennsylvania is closer, and could realistically go either way.

Gingrich, unlike most VP noms, wouldn't be there to grab one or two swing states. He would be on the ticket to motivate and rile up the base of the party, that part which has stayed away from Romney by nearly 60% in the primaries. If Romney doesn't have someone the tea-partiers and evangelicals can drool over, then he'll lose from miserable GOP voter turnout alone. Rubio is probably a better choice for Romney, as he deflects from Romney's weakness with Latinos and Border states, and has some star power that will help liven things up. However, his star is already rising well enough for him to have a good shot at the '16 nom, so taking a losing VP nod would likely be a poor move for him.

But Rubio IS that candidate. He's only a million times more appealing to the Tea Party and the right-wing than Newt Gingrich, and he has all of the demographic and regional perks that Gingrich doesn't have, without all of the baggage that Gingrich has. Even if he ran and lost, he'd instantly become a national figure, and as the incumbent senator of a large swing state and the former VP-nominee, he'd be a major player in Republican party politics. And even if it ended up being a landslide victory for Obama, Rubio could blame everything on Romney and claim that he'd do a better job if he was at the top of the ticket. Yes, the Republicans might have a better shot at taking the white house in 2016, but that just means that there are going to be more well-known top-tier candidates running, so having had the experience of a national campaign, the name recognition that comes with that, and all the opportunities to make connections for the shadow-primary in '16, Rubio would be a fool to turn down the VP nod.

And let's not neglect to mention the outside chance of Romney/Rubio actually winning the election. If the economy takes a turn for the worse, or some other force majeure event happens which hurts Obama, then Rubio would be kicking himself for turning the Vice Precidency down. Then he'd have to wait until 2020 to run, and who knows what's going to happen between now and then?

Palin is actually a great example of this. Had she simply stayed in office in Alaska, and lent her voice to conventions and talk shows, I think she would have had an excellent opportunity this year. But because she was thrust onto a far brighter national stage before she was ready, it turned into a trainwreck that relegated her to Fox News and reality TV. Her polls early on were about as prescient as early polls usually are. Obama, Bush Jr., and Bill Clinton were nowhere on the radar of the early polls in the years that they won.

I very much doubt that Palin would have been much of a national figure if she hadn't run for VP. I'm pretty good with Governors, but I'd have to go and look up who the Governor of Alaska is right now; it's about as obscure as you can get. Early polls DO count for something though. It's the metric used by party insiders and donors to decide the winner of the shadow-primary, i.e. who the establishment is going to throw their support behind. I'm not saying that that would be enough to get nominated, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have your name known by people, and the support of the party elites.

Clinton, Cuomo, and O'Malley may have something to say about that in '16, and it's likely that if Biden does run, a lot of the troubles that plagued McCain will plague him as well, in regards to age.

Clinton, definitely. Cuomo, has a lot of potential to run. O'Malley? Never heard of him. Sounds like an interesting guy, but I can't really find anything but rumors that he's going to run. Irish Roman Catholic, two term governor of a small blue state, Chairman of the DGA, pro-gay marriage, pro immigrant rights, young, good looking. Think he's got a shot?

[Ravariel]

At 54 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: Wait, how are you getting to that number?

Hmm, I must have added wrong.

So, although unlikely, any one of them could still win. But, if Romney doesn't get the 825 delegates he needs while none of the other candidates win a majority either, then we get a brokered convention where anything could happen. In fact, this has been the strategy of the Paul campaign all along; to amass enough delegates to become a power broker at the convention. This might be something that Gingrich is taking into account as well, and maybe he thinks that if he finishes a strong second in the delagate count, then he's got a chance at the convention.

Yes, there is a strategy in that as well, but Paul is really the only one who benefits from a Brokered Convention. Romney, as the establishment candidate, will be the default and it'll take some serious backroom shenanigans to make them go for anyone but him.

I mostly agree with you that Romney has a better chance of winning the swing states, but no way in hell is he winning in Massachusetts or California. There was a reason for Romney not running for re-election as Governor of Massachusetts: his approval rating was steadily slipping, and he would very likely have lost by double digits if he ran, and if that happened he wouldn't have been able to run for President in '08. Recent polling in MA is showing Romney trailing by 15-20 points. Massachusetts isn't going red anytime soon.

But it's a place Obama will need to spend money (similarly Michigan which he won handily in '08) because of Romney's name recognition and local ties. Normally Mass would get naught but a nominal appearance or two by the democratic nominee, but this will be different. And if Romney can force Obama to spend in places he doesn't want, that's a good thing for him. Don't get me wrong, I don't expect him to win Mass or Cali, but I do expect him to do well enough that Obama will have to expend more resources there than he wants. That opens up the Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida races a little.

But Rubio IS that candidate.

Possibly. The last time someone ran and won in a presidential race after running and losing in the one before is Reagan, and the only reason he lost is because he was challenging an incumbent.

I very much doubt that Palin would have been much of a national figure if she hadn't run for VP. I'm pretty good with Governors, but I'd have to go and look up who the Governor of Alaska is right now; it's about as obscure as you can get. Early polls DO count for something though. It's the metric used by party insiders and donors to decide the winner of the shadow-primary, i.e. who the establishment is going to throw their support behind. I'm not saying that that would be enough to get nominated, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have your name known by people, and the support of the party elites.

She got noticed enough for the nomination due to convention speeches she had given before (similarly how Obama got on radars by his keynote at Clinton's convention). Her problem was a lack of (inter)national politics, which is something she could have honed with 4 more years as Governor. Not to say she would have been a GOOD candidate, but she would have been a better one that the joke she turned out to be.

Clinton, definitely. Cuomo, has a lot of potential to run. O'Malley? Never heard of him. Sounds like an interesting guy, but I can't really find anything but rumors that he's going to run. Irish Roman Catholic, two term governor of a small blue state, Chairman of the DGA, pro-gay marriage, pro immigrant rights, young, good looking. Think he's got a shot?

No idea. Just heard some rumors about him. Who knows? Not sure anyone else is even on the Dem radar right now.

[Ravariel]

At 1 minute ago, Ravariel wrote: Her problem was a lack of (inter)national politics,

That should read "a lack of (inter)national political knowledge/experience." Rackum frackum.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 8 minutes ago, Ravariel wrote: Yes, there is a strategy in that as well, but Paul is really the only one who benefits from a Brokered Convention. Romney, as the establishment candidate, will be the default and it'll take some serious backroom shenanigans to make them go for anyone but him.

I very much doubt that. Contrary to popular belief, Romney is actually not too popular with the republican establishment, he's simply the only one in the race with a remote chance of beating Obama. Evidence of this can be seen in the number of high profile endorsements (senators, governors, etc.) of Romney; still only 16 Republican senators and 10 governors have come out in support of Romney (that's a total of 26 out of 75 incumbent Republican senators and governors). In previous years, the party elite have been much quicker to galvanize behind one candidate.

He's only the establishment candidate if he succeeds in winning outright. If the convention is deadlocked for more than two or three ballots, and Romney doesn't seem to be going anywhere, you can bet your ass that the party is going to want to look for someone else to rally behind. Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, or John Thune come to mind.

But it's a place Obama will need to spend money (similarly Michigan which he won handily in '08) because of Romney's name recognition and local ties. Normally Mass would get naught but a nominal appearance or two by the democratic nominee, but this will be different. And if Romney can force Obama to spend in places he doesn't want, that's a good thing for him. Don't get me wrong, I don't expect him to win Mass or Cali, but I do expect him to do well enough that Obama will have to expend more resources there than he wants. That opens up the Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida races a little.

I get what you're saying, but I just don't believe it for a second. When Romney was elected governor, he was running as much more of a moderate than he has running for President. His conservative platform doesn't resonate in liberal Massachusetts, and any money HE spends in MA is going to be a waste. He's not going to come close to overcoming a 20 point deficit in the polling without making some stark revisions to his policy and his rhetoric. And even if (and this is a huge if) Romney began nipping at Obama's toes in Massachusetts, there is a highly competitive senate battle going on there in the form of Elizabeth Warren Vs. Scott Brown, so the money to fight back against potential Romney campaigning is going to be there, and Warren will be able to act as a surrogate for Obama in many cases.

When it comes to California, I don't see how Romney is going to be competitive enough to warrant a response by the Obama camp. Romney is no more moderate than John McCain was, and McCain suffered the greatest Republican loss in California in decades. As mentioned, with Rubio on the ticket, something might stir up out of Cali, but barring any major developments, California is as safe as can be.

Possibly. The last time someone ran and won in a presidential race after running and losing in the one before is Reagan, and the only reason he lost is because he was challenging an incumbent.

True, but just because it hasn't happened yet, or that it's rare, doesn't mean that it CAN'T happen. Sarah Palin, flawed though she was, had a base of support that could have come in useful in the event of a presidential run, and she won that base from getting exposure and fame in the '08 campaign. Had she not been such a complete imbecile, I would have concidered her a very serious contender for the nomination, and if Rubio can run with Romney without making a complete fool of himself, I'd say he's in great shape for entering the 2016 race as a frontrunner.

She got noticed enough for the nomination due to convention speeches she had given before (similarly how Obama got on radars by his keynote at Clinton's convention). Her problem was a lack of (inter)national politics, which is something she could have honed with 4 more years as Governor. Not to say she would have been a GOOD candidate, but she would have been a better one that the joke she turned out to be.

I don't know, all of this is just hypothetical, but I somehow doubt that staying put in the single most strategically impractical state for presidential campaigning for another 4 years while she slowly built up steam for a Presidential run would have given her a foot in the door better than the instant stardom she got after receiving the VP nod. I'm telling you, Rubio is a thousand times more capable than Palin was, and all the stars seems to be aligning for him.

Clinton, definitely. Cuomo, has a lot of potential to run. O'Malley? Never heard of him. Sounds like an interesting guy, but I can't really find anything but rumors that he's going to run. Irish Roman Catholic, two term governor of a small blue state, Chairman of the DGA, pro-gay marriage, pro immigrant rights, young, good looking. Think he's got a shot?

No idea. Just heard some rumors about him. Who knows? Not sure anyone else is even on the Dem radar right now.

I know. Clinton seems to be gearing up for another run for the top spot, and New York Governor Cuomo has to be considered just on the basis of his credentials alone (he's a bit like the Democratic equivalent of Rick Perry in that way). I've personally been keeping an eye on Kirsten Gillibrand myself, but she might be more ripe for a 2020 race. Now that I've been reading up on O'Malley a little bit though, I'm kind of hoping that he does run. He seems very progressive at a glance, and he appears to have some Irish fighting spirit in him, so I'd be interested to see what kind of campaign he'd run. He somehow reminds me of Howard Dean when I read about him.

[Ravariel]

At 21 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: He's only the establishment candidate if he succeeds in winning outright. If the convention is deadlocked for more than two or three ballots, and Romney doesn't seem to be going anywhere, you can bet your ass that the party is going to want to look for someone else to rally behind. Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, or John Thune come to mind.

The problem is that the Establishment also knows that if they pick a candidate for whom no one voted originally, and who has no infrastructure in place for a strong general election run, they will lose so badly it will be a joke for decades afterwards. For that reason they will rally behind Romney immediately if he can't get to 1144. They know he has the best chance, and has the infrastructure in place to actually run.

When it comes to California, I don't see how Romney is going to be competitive enough to warrant a response by the Obama camp. Romney is no more moderate than John McCain was, and McCain suffered the greatest Republican loss in California in decades. As mentioned, with Rubio on the ticket, something might stir up out of Cali, but barring any major developments, California is as safe as can be.

The thing is, Romney is a republican who won in Massachusetts. He's done it. He can position himself in the right place to win Blue Dogs and independent voters. Obama cannot do the same. No state that is normally Red, will Obama have a chance in. And many battleground states, Obama comes in at a disadvantage due to race. Romney, however, may be the first Michigan native to lose Michigan by 30 points due to his "Let Detroit go Bankrupt" op-ed. It's hard to say where the polls will finally gel once the primary is complete. I expect that the margins will narrow considerably once we get closer to the General. I would expect that the margin in Mass will be 4-5 points once we get close to actual voting, and once Romney has been able to tack away from the ultra-right that he needs to win the Primary and back into the Moderate realm in which he is more comfortable. I don't think he WILL win in Cali. I think he could, and I think he will make Obama spend more money in states where he doesn't want to, which will make the battlegrounds harder-fought.

I don't know, all of this is just hypothetical, but I somehow doubt that staying put in the single most strategically impractical state for presidential campaigning for another 4 years while she slowly built up steam for a Presidential run would have given her a foot in the door better than the instant stardom she got after receiving the VP nod. I'm telling you, Rubio is a thousand times more capable than Palin was, and all the stars seems to be aligning for him.

They certainly do. The same sort of thing happened for Obama. I really wanted Obama to wait 8 years to run due to his relative newcomer status and limited governance experience. Perhaps this is Rubio's chance. I think this is a death sentence of a year for the GOP, and that anyone caught in the calamity might become persona non grata in future elections. Honestly Rubio will have a brilliant chance in 4 years, I just think it's too soon. Then again I thought it was too soon for Obama, so there's that.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 2 hours ago, Ravariel wrote: The problem is that the Establishment also knows that if they pick a candidate for whom no one voted originally, and who has no infrastructure in place for a strong general election run, they will lose so badly it will be a joke for decades afterwards. For that reason they will rally behind Romney immediately if he can't get to 1144. They know he has the best chance, and has the infrastructure in place to actually run.

Sure, Romney is the most likely candidate, even in case of a brokered convention, but if it appears like the convention isn't going anywhere, the GOP still doesn't have it's candidate by the second day of the convention, and all the candidates, including Romney, look like they're too damaged to have even the slightest chance to beat Obama, the party might turn to a dark horse candidate. It might not work out against Obama, but nobody is particularly excited about Romney; as many as 58% of his supporters say they would rather vote for someone else, which is a terrible number for Romney.

We'll see. If Romney manages to get the 1144 delegates he needs before the convention, then this discussion is moot, but if he doesn't, then we might be in for a strange Republican convention.

The thing is, Romney is a republican who won in Massachusetts. He's done it. He can position himself in the right place to win Blue Dogs and independent voters.

Ok, first of all, as I mentioned, Romney ran a much more moderate campaign in 2002, running as a pro-gun control, pro-gay rights, pro-stem cell research, pro-choice candidate, positions which he has since abandoned. If he had run on his 2012 platform in 2002, he would never have won in Massachusetts. In order to run hard in Massachusetts, he would have to flip-flop rather severely on most of these issues, which isn't going to do him any favors in the states that he needs to perform well in to win, Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Indiana, etc.

Secondly, Romney had a lot of things going for him in 2002. He was unopposed for the nomination while the Democrats had a hard fought primary between four candidates. The Dems didn't have their candidate until the middle of September, about a month and a half before the election, and that candidate, Shannon O'Brien, won with only 31% of the vote in the primary. In addition, the Green Party ran relatively strong in 2002, doubtlessly sucking up a lot of Democratic voters. In the end, Romney won with just a little bit less than 50% of the vote.

Third, as I mentioned, Romney didn't run for re-election in 2006 because he knew that his approval rating had been dropping and that he was likely to face a humiliating defeat, which would have quashed any hope of him running for President.

I'm telling you, winning, or even coming close to winning in Massachusetts is a pipe dream for Romney. Hear me now, quote me later, Massachusetts is not even going to be contested, and it will stay just as solidly blue as it was in 2008.

Obama cannot do the same. No state that is normally Red, will Obama have a chance in.

I dunno about that. I'd keep an eye on Arizona, it's been trending blue ever since the crackdown on its hispanic population, and polls have Obama within striking distance of winning it, only 5 points behind Romney, 5 points ahead of Newt Gingrich. Count on the Copper State to be a battleground in the general election, maybe slightly less so if Rubio is on the ticket.

And many battleground states, Obama comes in at a disadvantage due to race.

Wait, what? Obama won most of the swing states in 2008, and he generally outperformed his polling in traditionally white states and districts, in many cases doing better than Kerry did back in 2004, so I don't lend much credence to the claim that he was hurt too much by racism.

They certainly do. The same sort of thing happened for Obama. I really wanted Obama to wait 8 years to run due to his relative newcomer status and limited governance experience. Perhaps this is Rubio's chance. I think this is a death sentence of a year for the GOP, and that anyone caught in the calamity might become persona non grata in future elections.

Nah, all he has to do in case the election goes completely south for the GOP is to blame it all on the flippy floppy, wishy washy Romney. Palin went out of her way to talk trash about the McCain campaign afterwards, and she seemed to have had a reasonable enough shot at running for the nomination. Honestly, I think he'd be nuts to turn down the nomination if it was offered to him. The upsides far outweigh the potential downsides.

Honestly Rubio will have a brilliant chance in 4 years, I just think it's too soon.

I think he has a good chance in 4 years too, but he'd have an even better chance if he ran for VP, especially if the race ends up being fairly close. Senators don't have a very good track record when it comes to winning the nomination (Obama and McCain were the first ones since Kennedy back in 1960), so simply being a one-term Senator isn't necessarily going to be enough for him. Being a one-term Senator AND former Vice Presidential candidate sounds a lot better on your resumé.

[Ravariel]

Not that it makes me any more right, but I'm not the only one to consider this.

Posted just today: http://themoderatevoice.com/141140/romney-wins-two-us-territ ories-kansas-still-up-for-grabs/

[Angry-Hatter]

Not that it makes ME any more right, but that insight is coming from this guy.

[Ravariel]

At 7 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: Not that it makes ME any more right, but that insight is coming from this guy.

Fair.

fillerfillerchickendinner

[SadisticMonkey]

At 3 days ago, Ravariel wrote: ...for Romney.

And he knows it. The question is: why? The Ging is certainly the smartest

Romney got a perfect SAT score. And that is on the *old* SATs. So...yeah.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 4 hours ago, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 3 days ago, Ravariel wrote: ...for Romney.

And he knows it. The question is: why? The Ging is certainly the smartest

Romney got a perfect SAT score. And that is on the *old* SATs. So...yeah.

SAT scores aren't necessarily an indicator about political savvy. I mean, Bush Jr. was a C student in college, but for all his academic shortcomings, he certainly possessed some amount of political intelligence.

So, without taking any side on who is the smartest between Romney and Gingrich, I don't think that test scores are the greatest indicators of political instinct.

[Ravariel]

Never let it be said I don't admit when I'm wrong.

Santorum's pushes for Gingrich to bow out now look to be ill-advised. His best bet is to keep the Ging in the race, and try to take, between them, more than 50% of the remaining delegates, forcing a brokered convention. At which point, it is likely that Sanny and the Ging (sounds like a olde-timey comedy act) will join forces to leverage themselves into the nomination.

That said, Romney still only has to gain half of the remaining delegates to take it outright, and even after Santorums 2 wins last week, Romney still came away with more delegates than either (although less than half of the total up for grabs). Looks like we're in this for the long haul.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 19 minutes ago, Ravariel wrote: Never let it be said I don't admit when I'm wrong.

Santorum's pushes for Gingrich to bow out now look to be ill-advised. His best bet is to keep the Ging in the race, and try to take, between them, more than 50% of the remaining delegates, forcing a brokered convention. At which point, it is likely that Sanny and the Ging (sounds like a olde-timey comedy act) will join forces to leverage themselves into the nomination.

Imagine if Santorum and Gingrich managed to strike a deal between them to make a Santorum/Gingrich or a Gingrich/Santorum presidential ticket. Imagine the devestation the GOP would suffer in the general election if those two guys are the candidates. How could the Democrats NOT walk away with at least 30 states, the Senate, and the House of Representatives if these two clowns get the nomination?

There is another possibility that I've heard floating around. If neither Romney or the Santorum+Gingrich coalition get the 50% of delegates needed for the nomination, then the remainder is going to have to come out of the Ron Paul delegates. According to some campaign insiders of the Paul campaign, they would perhaps be willing to trade their delegates to Mitt Romney in exchange for giving Paul's son, Senator Rand Paul, the VP slot. Apparently, Rand is likely to run in 2016, so he likely wouldn't mind too much being on the ticket as the VP candidate this turn around.

That said, Romney still only has to gain half of the remaining delegates to take it outright, and even after Santorums 2 wins last week, Romney still came away with more delegates than either (although less than half of the total up for grabs). Looks like we're in this for the long haul.

Yeah, I've seen some figures that show a very tight race, all the way to the finish line. If Romney ends up with a majority, it isn't likely to be by a whole lot. There's plenty of room for shifts in momentum, and unless the Romney campaign runs pretty much perfectly without hitting any bumps in the road, a brokered convention remains as a very real possibility.

[Camarohusky]

At 3 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: Imagine if Santorum and Gingrich managed to strike a deal between them to make a Santorum/Gingrich or a Gingrich/Santorum presidential ticket. Imagine the devestation the GOP would suffer in the general election if those two guys are the candidates.

While this would be fun to watch the collapse, the mere chance of them getting the Presidency, them being so close and all, is just too damn frightening to risk it.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 32 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote: While this would be fun to watch the collapse, the mere chance of them getting the Presidency, them being so close and all, is just too damn frightening to risk it.

There's that, of course, but I'd rather have a 1 to 20 chance of a President Santorum than a 1 to 5 chance of a President Romney. I'm not at all convinced that President Santorum would be that profoundly different from President Romney on some of the more important issues, such as the economy, foreign policy, and judicial appointments. I think it would be worth the risk if it meant running the Republicans out of the House of Representatives, teaching the Republican party what happens when you nominate extreme candidates.

[Camarohusky]

At 9 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: There's that, of course, but I'd rather have a 1 to 20 chance of a President Santorum than a 1 to 5 chance of a President Romney.

While Romney may have the character of a wet towel, he's at least safe.

I'm not at all convinced that President Santorum would be that profoundly different from President Romney on some of the more important issues, such as the economy, foreign policy, and judicial appointments.

Yeah, but I don't care as much about that. The areas of economy, foreign policy, and the judiciary I have wildly polar and schizophrenic view (i.e. I tend to lean liberal but issue by issue I can actually end up at the far other end of the scale with no real pattern).

What scares me is the social stuff. The economy, foreign policy, and judicial appointments can and have gone either way without having too much of an effect on the average American. Shifting toward social conservatism would have an immediate and highly restrictive effect on all Americans. In other words, a nutty social person can destroy the fabric of our country moreso than a person with a nutty view of economics (cause frankly, ever since the 1980s...)

I think it would be worth the risk if it meant running the Republicans out of the House of Representatives, teaching the Republican party what happens when you nominate extreme candidates.

The more I think about it, the less I want a huge sweeping victory. I would love a beatdown when it comes to the Oval Office, but this trading of massive Congress victories is only serving to further polarize are already impotent Congress. If I could trust Congress to shut the fuck up and remember that politics are secondary to their jobs, then maybe. Until that point, I think we need to find a Congress that is minimally adequate to the point of being able to pass generally bipartisan regular stuff (like the fucking budget). I can bet that Korriken and I have agreed more times in the past year than Congress has.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 5 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote: There's that, of course, but I'd rather have a 1 to 20 chance of a President Santorum than a 1 to 5 chance of a President Romney.

While Romney may have the character of a wet towel, he's at least safe.

I guess you can always trust a dishonest man to be dishonest, if that's what you mean. Romney is only safe insofar that you can always count on him to do what is the most politically convenient to him, and what is most beneficial to his class of people (the rich).

Yeah, but I don't care as much about that. The areas of economy, foreign policy, and the judiciary I have wildly polar and schizophrenic view (i.e. I tend to lean liberal but issue by issue I can actually end up at the far other end of the scale with no real pattern).

Heh, so I've noticed.

What scares me is the social stuff. The economy, foreign policy, and judicial appointments can and have gone either way without having too much of an effect on the average American. Shifting toward social conservatism would have an immediate and highly restrictive effect on all Americans. In other words, a nutty social person can destroy the fabric of our country moreso than a person with a nutty view of economics (cause frankly, ever since the 1980s...)

If you care about the social policy aspect, then the person who appoints the judiciary should be of great concern to you. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 79 years old, and was treated for pancreatic cancer as recently as 2009. There's certainly a great risk that she might not make it another presidential term. And she's not the only one getting up there in years; Justice Kennedy is 75, and Justice Breyer is 73. If any of them decided to retire during the next couple of years, a Republican President could shift the composition of the court significantlly to the right by nominating another extreme right wing judge. The practical difference between a Santorum nominee and a Romney nominee in this aspect would be negligable, in my view.

The more I think about it, the less I want a huge sweeping victory. I would love a beatdown when it comes to the Oval Office, but this trading of massive Congress victories is only serving to further polarize are already impotent Congress. If I could trust Congress to shut the fuck up and remember that politics are secondary to their jobs, then maybe. Until that point, I think we need to find a Congress that is minimally adequate to the point of being able to pass generally bipartisan regular stuff (like the fucking budget). I can bet that Korriken and I have agreed more times in the past year than Congress has.

Well, there's the crux. I don't think that the way the political system currently works allows for anything but these artificial conflicts over the budget. You could have a majority of Democrats or Republicans, and the good cop, bad cop routine would still be the same; Republicans trying to rape you, and Democrats tenderly trying to penetrate you, either way you're getting fucked.

The root of all of this is the undue influence of money on the political system. When half of the Democratic party and the whole Republican party is bought and paid for by special interests, is it any surprise that the only thing thats that ever gets done is what's best for the people who pay the politicians?

So yeah, if the Democrats sweep the Republicans out of the House, it isn't really going to change much when it comes to the economic issues, but it very well might bring about a change in the social issues you're referring to. Democrats are much more likely to be in favor of equal rights for minority groups as well as reproductive rights for women, and since there's not really any money to be made on either of these issues, they are more likely to pass through congress without too much obstruction.

[Angry-Hatter]

Youch.

So Gingrich ended up with a piddly 8% of the vote in Illinois, underperforming his polling rather significantly, finishing in 4th place behind Ron Paul. There doesn't seem to be much hope coming over the horizon for old Newton either, with polls putting him in 3rd place in both Louisiana and Wisconsin, and campaign donations seem to have pretty much dried up, leaving his campaign in debt overall.

So, what's the over/under on when exactly Newt is going to throw in the towel? It's starting to look pretty bad.

[bismuthfeldspar]

That's a good analysis, there is no chance of Santorum winning though and Gingrich knows this, he is probably staying on as insurance, if it is discovered that Romney embezzled funds 15 years ago or something and his campaign collapses then the Republican party can rely on Gingrich instead of Santorum.

[Camarohusky]

At 15 minutes ago, bismuthfeldspar wrote: That's a good analysis, there is no chance of Santorum winning though and Gingrich knows this, he is probably staying on as insurance, if it is discovered that Romney embezzled funds 15 years ago or something and his campaign collapses then the Republican party can rely on Gingrich instead of Santorum.

No. If Gingrich and Santorum get enough delegates to knock Romney out of the target number, they will have a very real chance of teaming up and beating Romney at Convention.

The Illinois vote is actually quite telling. It goes to show that the Centrist Republicans do not like Santorum or Newt. That will be key should either get the nod.

[bismuthfeldspar]

Camarohusky wrote:

No. If Gingrich and Santorum get enough delegates to knock Romney out of the target number, they will have a very real chance of teaming up and beating Romney at Convention.

Who would vote for the Gingrich-Santorum ticket though?

:Ravariel wrote:

(RNC analysts have said that he would lose 35 states, creating one of the largest landslide victories in recent memory)

Gingrich would probably prefer a significant chance of becoming VP than a very low chance of becoming president, we will have to see whether Gingrich would prefer to rule in hell or serve in heaven.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 34 minutes ago, bismuthfeldspar wrote: Who would vote for the Gingrich-Santorum ticket though?

Sadly enough, at least 40% of voters.