2012 Race for the White House II: The Two Towers

Did you know there was a Republican debate last night. At least that's what I think I saw between tweets about Top Chef.

 

Neither Santorum nor Gingrich had ashes on his forehead. How are we to know if they're really Christians? I think the liberal media should investigate this tawdry scandal.

 

Yeah, why didn't they have ashes on their heads? As an Episcopal (Or Catholic taste, half the calories) I know there's more than one way to get out of the silliest parts of Ash Wednesday, but these guys are supposed to be full-calorie, no reduced-fat Roman Catholics.

 

I have to think those numbers are a bit soft, though. Once the Republicans stop beating each other about the head and shoulders and settle on someone, that'll close in a hurry given the job market there. It will very likely be very much in play.

But Obama can win without Wisconsin, I think-- and I'm not sure the same is true for Huckabee or Daniels or Paul or whomever actually winds up huggin' the wife under the confetti waterfall... If the Reeps don't win Wisconsin, they'll be losing a lot of other, tougher, states they absolutely have to have.

The fact that Obama's over 50% in Wisconsin today bodes well even if its soft.

 

It's proof they're muslim socialist anarchist anti-christ anti-business crony capitalist European Kenyan Anti-colonialists.

 

Though I wonder how much of that is due to the anti-GOP movement that sprouted after the Walker vs unions standoff, and whether that number is inflated, or something they'll build on as we get closer to November.

 

GOP ain't gonna win Wisconsin if they don't compete there. If Obama is serious about competing in Arizona, Texas, and Georgia (in addition to the normal litany of 2008 pickups), how will the GOP even begin to put up funds in Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, or New Hampshire?

And a note about how SuperPACs change the game...these groups can run wonderful ads, I'm sure. But will a SuperPAC essentially run out of a basement in DC run a thirty-state ground game? Will they do direct mail, door-to-door, and phone banking operations? Really? That stuff will be up to the RNC/DNC and the campaigns. Judging from what we've seen of the Romney turnout "machine," they won't get 60 million out the door.

 

I just wonder the extent to which the bolded part is destined to happen. For the life of me, I cannot imagine the conservative base that's swoons at a Santorum candidacy getting behind Romney. Ever. Nor can I imagine anyone but the religious zealot/TP core (basically, what he already has today) getting all jazzed up for anyone but Santorum. Not saying the Party won't have one, clear candidate. Rather that I don't see this schism in the Republican being patched over by whatever happens this nomination cycle. This rift is effing deep.

 

This is why we have vice presidential nominees.

 

Once they settle on someone, the "not Obama" type impulses will start to have more impact than the "not Mitt" type-- especially if they wind up with someone other than the "bum of the month club" we've seen so far.

Anyone whose clothes are not ragged and dirty from the street fight will look Christian/austere/pro-life/anti-communist/unGreen to anyone who wants to believe.

Warren G Harding was elected out of an absolutely brutal brokered convention, remember-- and he was basically a false front.

Nomination to vote is a short enough span that, with a little planning and luck, one has a chance to smile and wave and keep one's mouth shut and get away with it...

 

McCain was going to lose in 2008, no matter what. By appointing Palin, he arguably lost bigger than he would have otherwise.

I kinda think the "balancing the ticket" argument is an archaic one. When was the last time a complementary VP nominee swung an election?

Obama won with a fellow liberal-ish senator from the Mid-Atlantic - no geographic or ideologic balance (though I guess he needed an old white guy?), and he certainly didn't get anyone excited. Cheney arguably offered "seriousness", but besides the neo-con/culture conservative divide that voters don't care about, and again, no buzz. Al Gore? He was essentially Clinton, both geographically and ideologically, without the charisma.

John Edwards was someone who appealed to the party base, but that didn't help Kerry enough (though the turnout ended up being pretty decent).

 

Perhaps, but I just don't buy it.

It hasn't been hard to find quotes - a lot of quotes - this election cycle from conservative voters who say they'll sit this one out if Romney's the nominee. I understand it's circumstantial evidence, but, personally, I've never heard these kinds of quotes before coming from the right. The TP is the reason why the the election results went the way they did in 2010; it's why Congress (esp in the House) has at times seemed willing to tear apart the federal government if, to pass a piece of legislation, they need to compromise on anything. The TP and the religious right are why Santorum is considered a serious contender for the R nomination. Rick Santorum, for God's sake.

These people do not come across as being physically able to adjust their perspective on the world. Theirs is a world view based on moral certitude. Voting for Romney, to them, isn't a helluva lot different than voting for Obama. These people will rally around someone who they don't fully believe shares their values? I just don't see it.

100% of them? No, of course not; some will hold their noses and vote R come November. But enough won't to the extent that it depresses the vote on the right. Or so I hope, anyway.

 

I agree with you on this. I don't see how conservatives can keep on saying "this time will be different" and then settling for a moderate conservative. Eventually some of them will realize the cognitive distortion and bolt.

 

Here is a question will Rance Prebus go down as the biggest failure in the history of running a party? With a stated number 1 party goal of defeating Obama and where there is a seething desire to do anything necessay to make him a one term president, and we have an RNC process that has been highly entertaining but that has produced ... A front runner that is hated within his own party and ... Rick Santorum? What a friction political disaster. In a year that the republicans should have their best possible candidate with a chance of winning a general election already signed, sealed and delivered at the top of the ticket, we instead have a disaster where a huge chunk of the party is praying for a brokered convention and a white knight to emerge.

In the past, the RNC continued the process and ordained the candidate who was next in line. Reagan in 1976 was the last maverick to really cause problems. Rick Santorum? He lost as an incumbent in his home state by 18 points and is a confirmed loon.

 

Because human beings are emotional entities, not logical ones.

 

Maybe McCain in 2000 could be described as a bit of a problem, but that was solved by spreading the "McCain has a black child" rumor in South Carolina, IIRC.

 

Exactly. Because humans are emotional they will decide eventually that they are mad as hell and won't take any more of it.

 

Good thing Thomas Jefferson is not running for the GOP nomination today.


Edit: I google failed at finding a picture of the T Jefferson statue in Scary Movie.

 

Any email that mentions Ron Paul goes directly to my spam folder as well.

 

Exactly, it is getting hard to steal an election now in days, first Iowa and now Maine.

 

Jonathan Chait on how the Republicans may be right - 2012 might just be their last chance to take the country back: http://nymag.com/news/features/gop-primary-chait-2012-3/

But holy crap, the accompanying photo has lots of angry white people and little else:

 

I'll be willing to believe in the imminent death of the Republican Party once the Democrats are able to win a national election or two without the help of a third-party candidate or a global financial catastrophe. Their record is far less than stellar.

 

NASCAR's business is declining too, it's the same demographic.