2012 GOP Presidential Campaign -- "This individual's going to accuse me of an affair for an extended period of time."

Don't say misreading; "fundamental misreading" is the proper locution when addressing Newt-related matters.

Perhaps the elephant in the room is that the GOP is intellectually bankrupt and that they have been selling snake oil to their constituents for so long that they (the constituents) want looniness, hence the weakness of the slate.

That's astute, in part. But I'd say the phenomenon exists in tandem with a potentially larger reality that Obama enjoys the inherent advantages of incumbency, as well as, I think we can still say, reasonably strong political skills (stronger than any national figure since Bill Clinton, at least). While the economy represents a significant opening for Republicans, it may not represent enough of one for (at least arguably) stronger Republican candidates like Chris Christie or Jeb Bush to enter the race, given the (low but real) growth rate and potential for unemployment declines, as well as of course the GOP's hand in creating the economic collapse and Obama's continuing personal likeability. This more than anything probably accounts for the weakness (if it is that) of the field.

There is certainly a desire for looniness that has long existed in the GOP electorate and has seemed to become more amplified since their midterm loss in 2006 and especially after their loss to Obama in 2008 (which losses reflected larger demographic trends away from the Republicans, whose brand was damaged badly at the margin by Bush (who of course never won in the first place), that are ongoing and may be reversible only by making the party more palatable to hispanics (or moving it to the left)). In fact, I've not entirely jokingly characterized the current state of the right in terms of the five stages of grief, with birtherism as denial, the "tea party" (and filibuster) as anger, the primary process (and the marginally saner Boehner/supercommittee) as bargaining, a Romney nomination as depression, and an eventual election day loss as acceptance. Gingrich's boomlet may be a reversion to stage 2, such that the process will take longer. That looniness also may well go much further back, to Clinton's accession in '92, which led to murder accusations and the Gingrich revolution, among other things, or even 1990, when a guy named Rush Limbaugh went to #1 in the ratings while a Democratic Congress pushed tax increases over the pledge of a "moderate" Republican President who simultaneously was helping to strengthen the Clean Air Act.

But the desire for a non-Romney is not looniness alone - the lack of heavyweights cowed by the incumbent has allowed a claim on frontrunner status to be made by a Northern, famously data-driven Mormon in a largely Southern, anti-intellectual, and often explicitly "Christian" party. While the base may well have to ultimately accept him (and would do so, for the most part), Romney simply is not a natural fit for his party (and perhaps not a natural, period), which is why he has had difficulty gaining significant support anywhere outside his native Northeast, Michigan, and Inter-Mountain West/Mormon country, as well as why his most recent and current challengers have all been from the South(/Midwest) (and not born with silver spoons in their mouths) and have all enjoyed a slight advantage over him.

The race now is down to Romney and Gingrich, of course, with the electorate having ultimately figured out that the other "mainstream" candidates were not sufficiently prepared to be standard-bearers for the party (with the exception of Santorum, perhaps, but angry nerd isn't really "AGL" on either side; he only lightens up occasionally when policy is off the table, it seems), even if some of them briefly made themselves seem more "likeable" (Bachmann, Perry, and Cain all scored well on the beer midterm, but as we approach the final, the first is asleep, the second has turned into a sloppy drunk, and the third clearly couldn't keep his hands to himself and got kicked out of school). Gingrich is now (at least temporarily) winning that race on both likeability and perceived conservatism/toughness. While Willard Mitt can try to turn on the charm a bit and hope that Gingrich forgets to look at the note from his granddaughters reminding him to smile or commits some other gaffe (probably inevitable), Romney's real work will be on the second front, on which he'll have to go after Gingrich in both debates and tv ads hard enough to do some damage without seeming desperate. Assuming he can, it may not have too much impact in Iowa, where they like their candidates to play nicer and there isn't much time left, but it may help there at the margin (it certainly wouldn't be good for Mitt to lose second place to Ron Paul) as well as down the road.

While Gingrich is perfectly capable of taking himself out of the running, I think the real key to the race at this point may be how far influential figures in the party go towards vouching for Romney and, more importantly, declaring Newt unacceptable. The latter is widely regarded among beltway/political insiders as erratic, undisciplined, and a pompous asshole, which rightly causes concern among not only the other side but within his own party about his suitability for the office. There are a good number on his own side who have said so, and many more who could. The question is whether they will, and when, how, and by whom, as well as whether it will have much if any effect upon the primary electorate (that looniness factor again), a symbiotic factor perhaps. John Sununu has begun to inhabit this role for Romney in New Hampshire, where it's safest to do so, while unaligned Terry Branstad in Iowa will keep his powder dry. It will be interesting to see what Jim DeMint (a Romney leaner, perhaps) and Nikki Haley do in South Carolina, as well as how active a surrogate Chris Christie will be nationally. I think the key to the race will be Florida, where the role of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio (and perhaps Charlie Crist) could be significant. While Romney theoretically could rebound from a loss there with February wins in the Great Lakes and Southwest leading up to Super Tuesday, the polls today suggest that Florida is a must-win for him, putting Jeb and Rubio in a potentially kingmaking role. What they do may have ramifications for their prospects in 2016, as well as quite possibly for the VP slot (for Rubio, perhaps; Bob McDonnell may be strong competition) this year. Do they want Romney to win the primary? Does Rubio want to be on the ticket? Do they think Romney can win? Do they want Obama to win the general? I don't know the answers.

Oh, and hi guys. :)

Hello and welcome to your extended break from the Offspring to take time with us!

who is this person irl-ilx

Romney's un-Republican characteristics make him a potentially strong Republican candidate in the general, moreso than Newt most likely, but I think Obama still has to be called the favorite...
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/mark-mellman/196063-is-obama-toast-in-2012-
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/mark-mellman/197687-strategy-and-structure-part-ii

but see this potentially key framing of the election that could be read to call for more of a tossup, as long as Romney is the nominee: http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2011/11/brownstein_1.php

If party satraps finally accept Romney, then Rubio as VP nominee looks most likely; Rubio will Keep Mitt Honest, according to Tea Partiers.

romney/rubio is a decent ticket. they'll carry 42 states in '12.

romney/rubio is only a good ticket if the most active 25% of the party doesn't go into conniptions over romney and try to field a tea party scarecrow candidate, siphoning off volunteers and votes.

It's pretty clear by now that the "party establishment" (whatever that means, and however far it extends--if John Sununu and Dan Quayle still count, that's a rather lengthy statute of limitations) wants Romney, or at the very least realize he's far more electable than Gingrich. The thing we can speculate on endlessly (I realize I'm guiltier than anyone) but I think is impossible to know for sure until actual primary votes are cast is whether that will be enough for Romney.

That's a fundamentally long post up there, C.K. Dexter.

romney/rubio is a decent ticket. they'll carry 42 states in '12

That's going too far. Obama vs. Romney will be close either way, and Obama is all but certain to win at least 16 states, and probably closer to 25. The home-state factor for Rubio would probably help Romney lock in Florida (and likely NC; maybe VA too), but that's no guarantee imo - Rubio did not in fact beat his rivals in 2010. And while he does speak Spanish and tout an immigration narrative, I'm at least somewhat skeptical about his appeal to non-Cuban hispanics, especially in the West (where Obama's margins were also much larger than they were in the Southeast, though Mormons will be among the mitigating factors next year). I'm also uncertain about how his Catholic-turned-evangelical religious background will play. Not to mention the fact that he'll only be 41 on election day, younger than JFK was, with only a year and a half in national office, and no executive experience unless you count Speaker of the FL House. For these and other reasons, he may prefer to wait to seek higher office, which is pretty much what he's said.

I present Bob McDonnell as a more experienced alternative because he simultaneously plugs Romney's holes (quiet) - he looks and sounds more than Romney the part of a socially and fiscally conservative (quasi-)Southern Republican - while reinforcing Romney's strengths as a can-do Governor with appeal across the aisle (he somehow enjoys very high approval ratings in VA, which of course borders NC, despite being a complete wingnut). Even his personal style echoes Romney's in a way that would be more attractive to the typical GOP voter (I think; the similarity could backfire instead, as I think would be likely with a more patrician Rob Portman).

Put it this way - if Romney needs Rubio to win Florida, he's probably toast anyway. Now, which of these guys will better help him win Ohio (the State most likely to put him over the top, perhaps)? Keep in mind that McDonnell is Irish Catholic and went to Notre Dame. The counter-argument is that Romney is his own best surrogate in the "North", and Rubio better expands the map with theoretical appeal in both the Southeast and Southwest.

Not that these are the only two guys - while he doesn't need to, it's possible Romney might pick someone more experienced like Mitch Daniels, perhaps, or, slightly less boring, John Thune. Or he might double down on a Great Lakes/Northeastern strategy with Chris Christie, but while that's potentially high-reward, it's also possibly high-risk - even if he could pull off two (or more?) of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio, in addition to New Hampshire, he might still be leaving his Southern flank exposed (theoretically Obama might have a better chance at not only holding FL/NC(/VA), but maybe even pulling off MO or GA). Not sure how various candidates would play in AZ, which the GOP is likely to win again, but could be quite a bit closer without McCain the race and with an increasing hispanic population.

That's going too far.

you're right. romney/rubio will only carry 40 states.

I don't think the geographic factors matter that much for the vp pick, w/ a few exceptions. like rubio might get you a few points in florida but I don't buy that there's a regional effect beyond that. the last two GOP vp candidates were from...wyoming and alaska. when's the last time a vp pick has had a real and valuable regional effect?

imo he'll pick someone loud and crazy.

well, i think rubio's a pretty good bet. he's a tea-party darling, and yet isn't overtly crazy or inarticulate.

easy counterpunch, btw: swap jobs for biden and HRC.

when's the last time a vp pick has had a real and valuable regional effect?

Gore? Unless Clinton would have done just as well in the South without him...in which case, LBJ?

clinton would have done just as well in the south without him

and yeah I think both rubio and the biden/hrc swap are reasonably likely

it's just a pr stunt but it'd be weirdly effective

Kennedy took Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas; I guess Texas alone makes LBJ the answer.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1960

(I know 1960 was pre-Civil Rights Act/"Southern Strategy," but surely Kennedy doesn't win all of those states without LBJ.)

Speaking of LBJ, this 1972 photo of him is amazing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lyndon_B._Johnson_1972.jpg

Bah, if that didn't work for whatever reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lyndon_B._Johnson_1972.jpg

jfk/lbj is a good example but not only was this pre-southern strategy but it was also an era that didn't have the ultra-partisan voting demographic we have right now. there aren't *that many* peoples' votes in play and who's really like "oh, if that guy becomes president and then gets shot, the person who will then be president is from a state that is 5 hours away from me. I think I'm voting for him."

edwards did *nothing* for kerry iirc

Also: a Dem prez nominee could reasonably assume he could carry the Solid South, despite Eisenhower's inroads.

Joseph "Hot Lips" Biden as secretary of state? Doubtful.

yeah he would be pretty horrible, wouldn't he? maybe some other position then. but regardless a clinton as vp seems like a reasonable stunt esp if he's consistently trailing in the polls by a few points. I doubt it will happen if and/or when he's ahead.

That picture was from when LBJ was playing fiddle for Wet Willie, right near the end.

Stevenson carried the South fairly solidly in '52/'56 (except Texas and Florida...and the rest of the country), so I don't know how Kennedy would have fared with, say, another Northerner on the ticket. Had the identity of the parties re Civil Rights already started to shift by that point?

I'm confident and at ease that Newt will survive tonight stronger than ever. Serenity now. Serenity now.

http://unionresourcecenter.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/train+derailment1.jpg

oh yeah! there's a debate tonight. hm.

mitt not getting it done, so far

ohhhhhhhh . . . may have to watch.

i read tweets saying gingrich is nicely deflecting the attacks (seems to be enjoying them).

(sigh) is there a live feed of this?

challenging someone to a $10K bet onstage is nagl for a nominee

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC1i9qLUgPY

Shoulda pulled the ten grand out of his pocket to drive home the point. "See? I've got it right here! Ten grand! Let's do it!"

Bizarre: Newt-Romney outflanked on all sides. Except for his roundly booed line about losing to Teddy Kennedy--which is true!--Newt's doing okay.

Don't you get ABC, Daniel? It's as national as it gets (unless I'm just lucky that Buffalo's carrying it).

Bizarre: Newt-Romney outflanked on all sides. Except for his roundly booed line about losing to Teddy Kennedy--which is true!--Newt's doing okay.

― clemenza, Saturday, December 10, 2011 8:44 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

I didn't think it was booing I think it was more like "ohhhhhhhhhh no you didn't!"

Agree with Sullivan on how annoying Diane Sawyer is. Stephanopoulos, meanwhile, is as much of an agitator as we was during the 2008 Democratic debate in Philadelphia...except tonight I'm enjoying it.

lol Perry is so pathetic

hey looks like i turned this on at the right time

oh, now they're fighting about who is bigger friends w/ bibi. these guys are more hardcore on israel than i am

crowd doesn't know what to think about an issue that's not about taxes or Obama

i wonder if this is frustrating for the republicans -- they can climb over each other arguing about who loves israel the most and i'm still not going to vote for them

romney/rubio will only carry 40 states

States Obama is almost certain to win (with his 2008 margin therein):
Hawaii (45)
Vermont (37)
Rhode Island (28)
New York (27)
Illinois (25)
Massachusetts (25)
California (24)
Connecticut (22)
Washington (17)
Maine (17)
New Jersey (16) - Christie could put it in play, but is unlikely to win it; he didn't even beat his opponents (collectively)
Oregon (16)
Michigan (16) - Romney's birth here might substantially reduce the margin, aided by high unemployment, but it will be mitigated by his expressed desire to let the auto industry die
Wisconsin (14)
Minnesota (10)
^none of these States have voted for a Republican for President since Clinton came on the scene, and all except Oregon gave Obama a 50% or better approval rating in September. Romney may be a more attractive Republican to them than any since Poppy Bush/Reagan (Rubio not necessarily), but that isn't enough to win them.

States Obama will probably win:
Iowa (10) - it really belongs in the above category, having only gone for Bush over Kerry by 10K votes in a year in which Nader+other got 13K, and given Obama a 49% approval rating and reasonably solid head-to-head polling performances; still, its small size does make it a slight wild card
New Mexico (15) - like IA, it really belongs in the above category with such a wide margin and strong demographic moves in favor of the Democrats (neighbor McCain lost badly), but its small size and only a 46% approval rating make it just slightly unpredictable, and Bush beat Kerry here by 6K votes (in a year in which Nader+other got 8K), I think after at least one net had prematurely called the election; still, probably pretty safe for Obama, who is polling very well head-to-head (and benefits from low unemployment)
Pennsylvania (10) - Democrats never win by a lot here (it's Alabama in the middle, as they say), but they do always win, and while Obama has been tied or behind in many polls of the state, none of the Republicans have risen above the lower 40s and Obama outperformed his polls (and most Democrats) last time on strong black turnout; Christie could potentially really put the State in play (mitigated by Biden's roots), but I'm not sure he'd do that much that Romney cannot
Colorado (9) - a little closer than more hispanic New Mexico, with a little more Mormon influence, but Obama has continued to poll reasonably well here head-to-head
Nevada (14) - another small state, where Obama's margin may be dangerously reduced due to a long border with Utah/Mormon influence and some hispanic/general disillusionment (plus very high unemployment), and indeed Romney has often been tied in polling here, but also another state where Obama is aided by continuing demographic advantages that may be insurmountable and he substantially outperformed those polls in 2008, when again neighbor McCain got badly beat

Obama 2008 States that are Tossups:
New Hampshire (10) - Romney's media exposure from Massachusetts and 2008 is already helping here (where Bush won by 7K votes in 2000, while Nader got 22K, and where Obama enjoys unusually low approval ratings for a state he carried last time) - he now solidly leads in the polls. Whether the anti-Obama sentiment (racism?) that was prevalent in the 2008 primary will again evaporate by election day remains to be seen - the State's small numbers and flintiness make it hard to forecast.
Ohio (5) - the (perenially) truest tossup and perhaps keyest state in the race; Obama is tied in the polls, facing an unhappy but unpredictable electorate, but probably has a slight incumbency edge nevertheless
Virginia (6) - Romney, who probably eats away at some of Obama's tech community support, has at least a slight lead in polling, some of which Obama outperformed late, and a McDonnell pick might help put the State away
Florida (3) - Romney is well ahead in polling here, where unemployment is high, and the State looks gone for Obama, especially if Rubio is on the ticket, though the economic situation and demographics make it difficult to predict
North Carolina (-) - with a very slim 2008 margin, one might have to say it's gone, except continuing hispanic (and black? white educated male?) demographic trends may mitigate against that, reflected in polling in which Obama remains within the margin with Mitt as well as more popular than he is in some safer states

States Obama will probably lose but could theoretically win (especially if there's a third-party candidate):
Indiana (-) - Obama's neighborly advantage was good for just a 0.03% victory margin, and he lives in Washington now; still, some decent demographic trends in his favor
Missouri (-) - margin was close enough last time (just -0.13%) that with depressed conservative turnout, theoretically Obama could pull it off like (fellow) neighbor Clinton did twice; unlikely, though
Montana (-2) - trend is strongly away from Obama, who is unlikely to pull off Clinton's '92 feat
Georgia (-5) - like NC, demographic trends in favor and relatively high Obama popularity (48%, higher than FL/NC/VA, not to mention AZ/CO/NV/NM) combined with a Northeastern Republican (this State did pick Clinton over Poppy Bush); not enough, though
Arizona (-8) - without McCain in the race, perhaps the second-most hispanic state in the Southwest will look a bit more like CO or NV? with an older population, that probably isn't enough, even if it went for Clinton over Dole

If Romney wins all of the tossups and GOP leaners, he wins the election (by 1 electoral vote). but I don't regard that as likely - I think Obama is the favorite to carry at least one of Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia (or one of the other Southern states).

Did you know that Newt Gingrich is an historian (and that Michelle Bachmann is a tax lawyer)?

I'm sure you lead from the rear, Rick.

I was really hoping that Perry would talk about his lifetime friendship with Bibi Netanyahu.

Haha

santorum: "the so-called... 'west bank.'"

he must've been about to say 'occupied territories' and thought better of it bc idk anyone who doesn't call the 'west bank' the west bank.