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

Muppet Sec of State?

man does no one else remember that SNL skit, for real? ;_;

Eurythmics were the musical guests!

god they probably played "Don't Ask Me Why."

Beating up on foreigner's accents/speech patterns is best left to the intimacy of your own grow room.

Protip: 'beat' sounds exactly like cock in French

Newt comin with the red meat

Can someone please kidnap Newt until at least Florida has voted? It can only help.

That is sub-par cretinism coming from 'Professor' Gingrich. Are Austrians an invented ppl? It's typical Likudnik BS designed to legitimize kicking out the Arabs from Israel altogether and it ignores the nuance of regional identity in favor of a brand of pan-Arabism that even Arabs haven't really had any faith in for over thirty years. The man is a pandering ditz with dangerous delusions of adequacy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/21-reasons-newt-gingrich-wont-be-the-republican-nominee-for-president/2011/08/25/gIQA9m5kiO_blog.html

Stop bringing me down. I like this better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDMhlvbOFaM&ob=av2e

Ezra Klein's reasoning is too reasonable to apply to this year's Republican base. He says, fundamentally, that Gingrich is an unstable clown. So? Cain recently was polling above 25%, when no other Republican candidate was polling that high. That sort of discounts the "he's an unstable clown" argument down to size.

Hope you're right--Ezra Klein as Frank Grimes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx7njOYco2A&feature=related

An apt analogy.

The Candidate Formerly Known as the Guy Who Had Trouble Counting to Three (now negotiating Counting to One):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3v3caTWDig

This mussolini guy is a clown, he's going nowhere

Same with that Charlie Chaplin look-alike, Adolf Wotzisname.

lol @ early adoption of THIS GOP CANDIDATE COMPARES WELL WITH THE MOST BRUTAL DICTATORS IN HISTORY trope

Merely pointing out that one's personal conviction that a certain politician is a clown doesn't make him disappear from politics. Many people misunderestimated Bush, too.

lol @ early adoption of THIS GOP CANDIDATE COMPARES WELL WITH THE MOST BRUTAL DICTATORS IN HISTORY trope

― undervalued aerosmith tchotchkes sold in bulk, Friday, December 9, 2011 9:53 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Permalink

can you name some leftists (or better yet, non-brutal dictators) who were totally dismissed as cranks/clowns and later ascended to presidencies/prime ministerships? I'm sure there are some... Maybe Castro?

(though obvs. he's a brutal dictator)

"he's using postage stamps...you know who else used to put stamps on his letters...Josef Stalin"

You would have thought he'd just have some sort of inkpad/stamp deal that read "Mail this you fucker or you're off to the gulag."

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/174/jsai5.jpg/sr=1

Joseph Stalin: dictatorship is magic

can you name some leftists (or better yet, non-brutal dictators) who were totally dismissed as cranks/clowns and later ascended to presidencies/prime ministerships?

Not quite the same thing, but there were a bunch of buffoonish Southern Democrats who held high elective office through the previous century, and a couple of them made decent third-party runs at the presidency. Mitigating factors--factor--obviously.

Stalin the Brony is a lol for the ages

xps

that's a misreading of the klein piece. he says he likes gingrich! just that

a. a large % of people with influence in GOP have reasons to strongly dislike gingrich on a personal level. many already do.
b. tons of ridiculous personal scandals
c. his policy views are prob even less reliably conservative than romney's

newt has a lot of polling support atm but it's pretty soft and he hasn't experienced the full public 'vetting'

how many times does fox news need to play this ad a day for the race to change? not very many times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaZFfQKWX54

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.