Zogby has done a good job this cycle. Romney may win here. We’ll see. The win would probably be much more meaningful if he didn’t try to run to the right on immigration though. If I were Romney I’d be kicking myself for that.
But Cwpete I disagree. The dynamics aren’t going to change because I suspect McCain does very well in getting delegates here - whether he wins or loses. Romney is going to need to make a showing somewhere else to rack up those delegates.
It isn’t over until it’s over. Patriots fans learned that last night!
I am SO glad that there are only roughly two days between the end of the Super Bowl and the end of Super Tuesday so I won’t have to put up with this already-cliched analogy for too long.
I don’t think Romney would have done as well if he’d held a less conservative immigration position. You keep on saying this, but I think it’s demonstrably false. In Florida, he got 49% of those were concerned about immigration. McCain got like 15%. Around 18% of people were concerned about immigration. In Florida, he got about 15% of the Hispanic vote. McCain got around 505. Around 15% of people were Hispanics. Obviously there’s some overlap here, but not much based on those numbers. And if you actually change these breakdowns so that McCain and Romney split the “concerned about immigration vote” and the “Hispanic vote”, Romney actually comes out worse. The same thing will happen in California. Romney will lose Hispanics by 20 points or more. But, he’ll win an even bigger majority among the larger segment of the population that cares about immigration. It’s potentially a similar sort of trade off that Clinton has made in utterly alienating the black vote, but admittedly on a smaller scale. Sure, losing huge percentages of the black vote in places like South Carolina hurts, but if you can get whites and Hispanics to rally to you, in a series of Democratic primaries, you’re going to win more often then you’ll lose.
But in a district-by-district contest where there are more blue than red districts and blue districts count for just as much as red districts, and many Hispanics live in those blue districts, and Romney has a history of losing among Hispanics 51-15 I have to think that what you might plausibly say would be a 20 point loss among that group of voters is going to get magnified in district after district. I don’t see how it couldn’t.
The worse news here is that Zogby now has Obama up by 6 in California, up in Missouri, and up in Georgia. I’m thinking Clinton’s about to get TK’Oed by a vibrant young black man, and we’re going to send up a 71 year old white man to do battle with him. Sigh.
Matthew E. Miller — Except that even if Romney were to pull this miraculous upset off based on immigration, he’d have done it only by alienating so many people that he can’t possibly win in a general election. And he’s got to be extremely careful about what he chooses to moderate in the general election run, because he’s already walking on eggshells with the ‘flip-flopper’ label…
Most people actually do support some sort of path to citizenship. They just want the border secured first. Romney is saying — No, we have to send them all home. As we know, this position is popular with and of paramount importance to the American people, which is why JD Hayworth is still a Congressman, Tom Tancredo’s bid took off like a rocket, and John McCain is performing so poorly in the Race 4 2008.
The Conservative Base != A winning general election coalition
The worse news here is that Zogby now has Obama up by 6 in California, up in Missouri, and up in Georgia. I’m thinking Clinton’s about to get TK’Oed by a vibrant young black man, and we’re going to send up a 71 year old white man to do battle with him. Sigh.
Much better to send a phony, flip-flopping, self-funded Mormon that eats KFC with silverware!
Matthew Miller, I’m for Romney. That is clear. Having said that, you are correct that Romney will gain more votes among anti-immigration people than he will lose among Hispanics and will probably win California, but it is in the general election that this could get problematic. If Romney is the nominee he will get crushed among Hispanics and that could hurt him. Regardless of the political implications, opposing amnesty is the right position. We shouldn’t reward people who break laws. I think it’s a rough general election issue though.
We are screwed in 2008. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we can plan out what we’re going to do over the next four years to fight back against the Democrats and prepare for 2012.
Couple of thoughts:
1. I agree that in terms of delegates, Mitt needs to get more elsewhere.
2. Regardless of the delegates alloted in CA, however, Mitt winning the largest state in the country would send a pretty strong signal. But how does the media play it? here is my guess: CNN downplays and highlights delegates because they are big McCain fans apparently, MSNBC is likely the fairest but I seem to think they lean toward Mit, but I think they will report CA the fairest, FOX will be split-Hannity will trumpet a great win for Mitt and invite the terrribly awful Anne Coulter onto his show, while “political analysts” will downplay the Mitt win and talk up the delegates. I will be unfailingly disgusted with both Fox and CNN and will have no where to watch between 8-9EST when Olbermann is on, he is terrible too.
3. Does anyone else find it ironic that the guy from the east coast seems to have a strangle hold on the western states, except for his opponents home state, and the guy from the (near) West coast has a strangle hold on the the eastern states except for his opponents home state? fascinating. (maybe I will blog about that).
4. How many districts does Mitt win in CA? This is what is really important.
5. Do election returns out east that will close 3 hours before they do in CA, have any effect?
6. Despite a win in CA, how much more must Mitt win before he considers staying in for the long haul?
Personally, I have resigned myself to the fact that McCain will be our nominee. Guaranteed? No. But likely. I don’t necessarily find it a bad thing as I think that the Dem candidate will win in November no matter whaty. This election is not about ideas and policy, it is about change, you don’t even need any substance (I’m looking at you Obama). So why not throw a sacrificial lamb like McCain at the dems in his last chance to be Pres, then be done with him? ) Personally, if/when McCain becomes the nominee I will have to think long and hard about whether or not I vote for him. Would I rather have McCain for 8 years? What kind of Pres would he be? Where would I see our country headed during that time? or would I rather see Hillary be Pres for four years, let her do her damage and rile up the GOP base and hope that the GOP is smart enough to nominate a person who would truly be a great president.
I just don’t see McCain being anything more than a mediocre President in the scheme of things. I also think he would lose re-election in 4 years. I think McCain’s presidency would be as forgotton in history as Benjamin Harrison or Warren Harding. I think his presidency would be a poor economy, nominating moderate-liberal judges, and more war.
While the age contrast could hurt McCain against Obama, I would much rather run against Obama, whether it is with McCain or Romney. Regardless of how charismatic he is, he can’t win a general election. He is too far to the left. The Republicans will cream him with his liberal positions of driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, his plans to meet with dictators without preconditions. Democrats only win when they nominate moderates like Carter and Bill Clinton. They don’t win with George McGovern types which is what Obama is, except more charismatic. Hillary is liberal too, but she is more dangerous because she will triangulate and she is a much tougher person than Obama.
I agree mostly, and if that is the case, I would rather Romney lose the nom to McCain, making Mitt the “next” guy in the party, thus making him the early front runner in 2012 should he decide to run. We know that GOPers always nominate the early front runnner, thus Mitt is the guy in 2012. Good enough for me.
I agree mostly, and if that is the case, I would rather Romney lose the nom to McCain, making Mitt the “next†guy in the party, thus making him the early front runner in 2012 should he decide to run. We know that GOPers always nominate the early front runnner, thus Mitt is the guy in 2012. Good enough for me.
I strongly disagree that Mitt would be “the guy” in 2012 if he gets the nomination and loses this time.
In fact, I’d rather have Mitt as the nominee because it would make him go away in 2012, lest he be tempted to run again.
TLG, that is one of the nuttiest things I’ve heard you say. We should just write off an election nine months before it and worry about an election 4 years and 9 months away? That’s crazy! I agree with Swint on some things. I don’t think McCain will be mediocre though. He will be an above average President but probably not in the top ten or anything like that.
Hillary is liberal too, but she is more dangerous because she will triangulate and she is a much tougher person than Obama.
I think that this makes her far less dangerous for the country.
Part of what I fear about Obama is that, if he’s successful, he could become their Reagan, repackaging liberalism with a smiley face and making it appear to be what ‘unites’ people.
Never, ever, ever underestimate the stupidity and emotionalism of the American electorate.
Reagan was pretty far to the right to. Obama’s could be overcome potentially, and he could be turned into the hard-left liberal he is. But, not with John McCain at the top of our ticket. The contrast is too stark. I’m not convinced Romney can manage it either, by the way. But, at least Romney’s a better debater then Obama and is energetic.
Clarence you fail to account for two things: 1. Voter stupidity, which is prevalent and 2. Voters are l;ess concerned about ideology and policy this election, they want a fresh face who is charismatic. If this were not the case Barack would have been dead already, he has no substance whatsoever.
#19, I agree and I was not trying to complain to much by writing that, however it will be downplayed because MItt won and McCain lost. I McCain won CA and lost the delegates there to Mitt, they would play up the McCain win. That is what bothers me. I just want honest journalism, and amazingly, MSNBC has been the most honest (note the word most).
TLG, that is one of the nuttiest things I’ve heard you say. We should just write off an election nine months before it and worry about an election 4 years and 9 months away? That’s crazy! I agree with Swint on some things. I don’t think McCain will be mediocre though. He will be an above average President but probably not in the top ten or anything like that.
I also said that we should be concerned with what we should do over the next four years, but whateverrrrr.
I’m not convinced that either of our guys can win.
TLG, I agree with you that Clinton wasn’t really a moderate. Carter was pretty liberal too but to a lesser degree than McGovern or Mondale. Hillary is not a moderate either, but a liberal. But all three PORTRAY themselves as moderates. Obama doesn’t even pretend to be moderate. That makes Hillary tougher to beat. People don’t always look beneath the surface. As far as Edwards, he is a Southerner who believes in Jesus, but I would categorize him as more liberal than the Clintons, especially on issues like trade.
22-And that is why I (may) want Mitt to lose the nomination. If Mitt wins the nom, but loses the general, I wish Mitt would never have won the nom. Losing the general hurts a candidate politically more than losing the nom.
Reagan was pretty far to the right to. Obama’s could be overcome potentially, and he could be turned into the hard-left liberal he is. But, not with John McCain at the top of our ticket. The contrast is too stark. I’m not convinced Romney can manage it either, by the way. But, at least Romney’s a better debater then Obama and is energetic.
Reagan was far to the right, but we were coming out of four years of Carter. We could ‘get away’ with a Reagan because of how disillusioned the country was with liberalism. Right now, the country is up in arms over Bush, and people think that he represents hardline conservatism. So what I fear is that Democrats can ‘get away’ with an Obama — the #1 liberal in the Senate.
My guess is McCain would stand the better chance against Hillary, and Romney against Obama. I just don’t see McCain looking that great against Obama, and I don’t know how Romney stacks up against such a dirty campaigner like Clinton.
TLG, I agree with you that Clinton wasn’t really a moderate. Carter was pretty liberal too but to a lesser degree than McGovern or Mondale. Hillary is not a moderate either, but a liberal. But all three PORTRAY themselves as moderates. Obama doesn’t even pretend to be moderate. That makes Hillary tougher to beat. People don’t always look beneath the surface. As far as Edwards, he is a Southerner who believes in Jesus, but I would categorize him as more liberal than the Clintons, especially on issues like trade.
I was referring to Carter, really. No, he was no Mondale, but he’s a pretty liberal guy! I don’t think that he could get away with any sort of ‘moderate’ image were he not a Christian from the South.
Obama definitely pretends to be moderate, and he seems to be getting away with it so far, which is why I think he’d be easier in a general election than Hillary Clinton.
22-And that is why I (may) want Mitt to lose the nomination. If Mitt wins the nom, but loses the general, I wish Mitt would never have won the nom. Losing the general hurts a candidate politically more than losing the nom.
Oh, woops. I misread what I was replying to in my 22. Sorry.
TLG, I’m not “convinced” they will definitely win either, but I’m not ruling out either man beating Hillary or Obama. Matthew Miller, Reagan was far to the right, but that didn’t matter because this is basically a conservative country. I don’t think being far to the right is anywhere near as damaging as being far to the left. Because this is a conservative country, Republicans win most Presidential elections by default. However, Carter made it in because of Watergate. Clinton made it because of the 1991-1992 recession, Buchanan’s challenge to Bush which divided the party, and to a lesser degree, the Perot factor. In 1996, since Clinton was moderate enough and the economy was good, he was able to beat Dole, who was a lackluster candidate, but I believe this is fundamentally a conservative country, and unless there is a special circumstance, Republicans generally win the Presidency.
Well, there was a point made yesterday on the news that said the only thing Obama has run or shown success and leadership at was the Harvard Law Review.
Romney could trump that, despite all that lovely fluffy rhetoric that leaves people blank as to what he actually talked about.
The interesting thing is that Senators are generally NOT elected to the presidency - they are politicians - that haven’t GOVERNED or RAN anything in most cases. Mitt is the only governor amongst 3 senators in the frontrunner’s left. None of these people has done anything but voted or run a committee of a handful of people. Hmmmm
GO ROMNEY - may this be a nice turning point for you!
31-I largely agree. I think Mitt could hold his own against Hillary, mostly because of the spite people hold for her. ALthough, McCain fares much better against Hillary than Mitt does. I see McCain v Hillary being Man v woman election. Woman vote goes strongly to Hill and Male vote to the guy who was a tortured POW being attacked by a socialist woman.
Clarence,
First things first. McCain’s nomination would be a disaster for the party, and it would be an even bigger disaster if he won. This was Coulter’s reason for campaigning for Hillary. She doesn’t want the GOP to have the responsibility for the chaos that would result from McCain’s statist policies. So if we can avoid a McCain nomination, we’ve saved ourselves from a fate worse than death. Winning in the general is definitely possible, but it’s way too early to predict one way or another. Weird things can happen in the middle of general election campaigns. How did Gore lose in 2000 to W? He was the sitting vice president of a very popular 2-term Democrat administration running against a man widely portrayed in the media as being dumber than a bucket of rocks. Forget about the general right now, and concentrate on doing the right thing.
TLG, Obama is not pretending very hard as far as I’m concerned. He supports driver’s licenses for illegals and meeting with dictators without preconditions. He has embraced the Kennedys. That isn’t what I consider pretending to be moderate.
TLG, I’m not “convinced†they will definitely win either, but I’m not ruling out either man beating Hillary or Obama. Matthew Miller, Reagan was far to the right, but that didn’t matter because this is basically a conservative country. I don’t think being far to the right is anywhere near as damaging as being far to the left. Because this is a conservative country, Republicans win most Presidential elections by default. However, Carter made it in because of Watergate. Clinton made it because of the 1991-1992 recession, Buchanan’s challenge to Bush which divided the party, and to a lesser degree, the Perot factor. In 1996, since Clinton was moderate enough and the economy was good, he was able to beat Dole, who was a lackluster candidate, but I believe this is fundamentally a conservative country, and unless there is a special circumstance, Republicans generally win the Presidency.
I’d refer you to my #30 on Reagan.
This is a moderate nation that thinks that it’s center-right. If you check the polls, most Americans want to compromise on the issues — civil unions, abortion with restrictions, closed borders with a path to citizenship, more government in health care but not mandates, pulling out of Iraq but not staying indefinitely, etc…
I mostly agree, but I think this is more a reflection of stupendous weakness of our field and the true desperation of the times. To compare Obama to Reagan is insulting. Reagan worked in the trenches fighting for conservatism and fighting against communism for 30 years before he decided to run for President. He was in millions of American homes, running occasionally political skits on his GE Theater show. He was a huge contributor in keeping communism mostly out of the motion picture industry. Obama’s a Johnny come lately pretty face and powerful voice, who’s done nothing of significance in his life. I hope they continue these ludicrous Reagan comparisons. Then someone can say “Reagan fought the communists for 30 years before running for president. He campaigned for candidates before he’d ever run for office. He debated and won against luminaries like Bobby Kennedy, when he’d barely signed his first bill as Governor. You Barack, are no Ronald Reagan. That actor had 10 times the experience you have”.
Does the fact that Coulter endorsed Mitt make anyone else like Mitt less. I love the guy and think he would be an incredible president, but the coulter endorsement is one that makes me sick. She is the worst person in the GOP.
I think Obama will be strongly hurt or even destroyed whenever attack ads come out showing his undying support for “abortion” OUTSIDE of the womb. All we would have to do is remind the American electorate that any person who supports starving already-born American citizens living outside of the womb due to a botched abortion does not have the moral integrity needed to be president.
Dave, you are preaching to the choir. I support Romney, not McCain. However, I will support McCain without question if he is the nominee. I don’t think he’s as bad as Coulter is making him out to be, but I agree that Romney is much better.
I think it’s less that Obama is “pretending” to be a moderate than it is that so far he hasn’t really tackled any divisive issue. He talks in generic platitude about feel-good things like “bringing the country together”. Sooner or later he’s going to need to get specific and answer for his record. Then he’ll look a lot less moderate.
TLG, Obama is not pretending very hard as far as I’m concerned. He supports driver’s licenses for illegals and meeting with dictators without preconditions. He has embraced the Kennedys. That isn’t what I consider pretending to be moderate.
Doesn’t matter; his rhetoric is of unity and togetherness and that seems to be trumping his (relatively unknown) stances on the issues so far. Can he get away with that for eight months? I don’t think so. But I think he’s doing his damndest to make himself seem like the more ‘moderate,’ ‘electable’ choice.
TLG, valid point about Obama, and I also agree this is a center-right nation. Not a right-wing nation, not a centrist nation, but center right. I don’t think Reagan was too far to the right to win, but I do think Obama is too far to the left. He can’t get by on platitudes forever.
I mostly agree, but I think this is more a reflection of stupendous weakness of our field and the true desperation of the times. To compare Obama to Reagan is insulting. Reagan worked in the trenches fighting for conservatism and fighting against communism for 30 years before he decided to run for President. He was in millions of American homes, running occasionally political skits on his GE Theater show. He was a huge contributor in keeping communism mostly out of the motion picture industry.
Irrelevant. No one thinks of Reagan in that way except for people like us.
Obama’s a Johnny come lately pretty face and powerful voice, who’s done nothing of significance in his life. I hope they continue these ludicrous Reagan comparisons. Then someone can say “Reagan fought the communists for 30 years before running for president. He campaigned for candidates before he’d ever run for office. He debated and won against luminaries like Bobby Kennedy, when he’d barely signed his first bill as Governor. You Barack, are no Ronald Reagan. That actor had 10 times the experience you haveâ€.
The comparison is not in calling him a hard worker or a dedicated activist. It’s in speaking of his potential impact on American politics; in reshaping liberalism and packaging it with a unifying smiley face, just as Ronald Reagan was able to cast conservatism as the optimistic, patriotic ideology for millions. Does the phrase “Obama Republicans” not scare you at all? Ideology and a history of working in the party doesn’t matter to anyone except people like us. I know people that voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 that would consider voting for Obama this time around — and I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why, until I take off my ideological glasses, which are not being worn by the general electorate.
I will say, the dems would have been unstoppable if they were smart enough to nominate someone that had experience and was not hated by half the country. Their two candidates both have MAJOR weaknesses that could spell doom for them this year. If they were smart they would have nominated Biden or Richardson of the crop that run or if they were really smart they would have talked Mark Warner into running and given him the keys. The dems had everything going for them this year and could be jeopardizing it with a candidate with no experience whatsoever or a candidate that is vilified by half the country. I will say, dems don’t really think things through. I think the GOP batch of candidates was much stronger than the dem batch, but that gap is made up for due to the current political climate and the tiredness voters have for Bush and GOP. It will be tough hurdle to overcome for the GOP, one that I would be surprised if they won..
#43 No,Mitt didn’t seek Ann’s endorsement and she has made it clear that Duncan Hunter was her first choice. Her vote is less for Mitt but against McCain.
TLG, valid point about Obama, and I also agree this is a center-right nation. Not a right-wing nation, not a centrist nation, but center right. I don’t think Reagan was too far to the right to win, but I do think Obama is too far to the left. He can’t get by on platitudes forever.
Yeah, that’s what I’ve been saying for a bit here. Obama will either be a spectacular success or a huge bomb in the general election, I think, against McCain. I can see things going both ways.
I disagree, as I said, that we’re a center-right nation. Most Americans deplore the political process, partisan debate, and the like, and want compromise on all of the issues. We’re most often center-right on religious issues. Prayer in schools, 10 Commandments in the courtrooms, sexual (not gay rights) issues. On economic issues, we tend to be more left-leaning. A dismal combo, from my perspective, of course…haha.
I think Hillary Clinton is the best campaigner out of both fields of candidates. She does more with relatively lackluster skills then anyone since Nixon. The fact that Obama’s managed to “get by on platitudes” while campaigning against her should give you pause. I’d also note that we shouldn’t underestimate his substance. His speeches are utterly devoid of substance, but somehow compelling. He talks about serious issues in serious ways during the debates, but looks utterly dull doing so.
TLG, you are spot on about Obama. He would be the tougher kill than Hillary. People, right now, have this strange connection with him and regardless of what he says or his ideas are, they still love him. Fortunately Americans have much shorter attention spans and love affairs than we have in the past. The GOP needs to hope that if Obama wins the nom, they can get that flowery and perfect image of Obama out of the public’s mind fast.
Also, if he wins the nom, he will be giving the key note speech at the Dem convention, and that may just well lock up the presidency for him. It will be watched by millions and people will have no idea what he said, but only care how he said it and heard key words of hope and unity. Voters are sheep.
#53 The republicans have by far the best candidates, but there were too many of them. We are too busy trashing our candidates down that we are most likely going to nominate the least conservative and the one with most baggage for the Dems to destroy.
Interesting a lot of Dems look at McCain as the center of their party.
I’m extremely confident Mitt can win against either of those candidates. Its just my humble opinion.
Once Barry is fully vetted, people will come running to Mitt. The fact that his brother is a leader of Islamic extremist alone is enough to drive millions from him.
Romney hasn’t campaigned in California much so I’m guessing McCain is in for a big surprise tomorrow.
In any event, McCain is screwed. His dream of a super Tuesday sweep is out the window. The race will go on. With Huck dropping out soon and the Vietnam Veterans for Truth going national on TV things are about to get very interesting.
I understand that, and yes an “Obama Republican” is a frightening thought. I’m simply saying that if Obama and the media to continue to refer to him as the “Reagan of the left” we’re going to have a potential opening. I mean, the Democratic party and the media spent all of 1979 and 1980 turning Reagan into a buffoonish warmonger, without any experience to speak of. And until the last few weeks of the campaign, they seemed to be succeeding. But, in the end, people woke up and realized they were being sold a bill of goods, and that Reagan was plenty intelligent, not so wildly conservative, and plenty experienced. We don’t even seem to be trying to do this sort of thing to Obama, when he genuinely is inexperienced and radically liberal. There’s some sort of disconnect here.
Also, if he wins the nom, he will be giving the key note speech at the Dem convention, and that may just well lock up the presidency for him. It will be watched by millions and people will have no idea what he said, but only care how he said it and heard key words of hope and unity. Voters are sheep.
A democratic Congress matched up with Obama or Hillary (or McCain) will RUIN this country!!!!
The Tax cuts will expire, the War on Terror will be lost!! OUR ECONOMY WILL TANK!!!!
Think 2008 Olympics Bejing people!!! Think of what all that free press about the Olympics will that do for him, JUST 2 MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTION!!! FIGHT!!!!
Mitt Romney can win this!!! HE WILL WIN IT IF WE GIVE HIM THE CHANCE!!!!
I understand that, and yes an “Obama Republican†is a frightening thought. I’m simply saying that if Obama and the media to continue to refer to him as the “Reagan of the left†we’re going to have a potential opening. I mean, the Democratic party and the media spent all of 1979 and 1980 turning Reagan into a buffoonish warmonger, without any experience to speak of. And until the last few weeks of the campaign, they seemed to be succeeding. But, in the end, people woke up and realized they were being sold a bill of goods, and that Reagan was plenty intelligent, not so wildly conservative, and plenty experienced. We don’t even seem to be trying to do this sort of thing to Obama, when he genuinely is inexperienced and radically liberal. There’s some sort of disconnect here.
There isn’t. People don’t want to see Obama attacked. They like him so much personally that they almost take personal offense at seeing such a figure be attacked. He’s preaching hope, unity, and togetherness — who could attack that? So what we have to do is tear down that image, first and foremost. We have to make that claim look ridiculous before we can go after him on anything else, because as long as he has that aura of unity, we can’t hit him effectively on other things. Thankfully, he seems to be doing our work for us — MoveOn.org and the National Journal ranking are amazing gifts to our party in the general election.
“Also, if he wins the nom, he will be giving the key note speech at the Dem convention, and that may just well lock up the presidency for him. It will be watched by millions and people will have no idea what he said, but only care how he said it and heard key words of hope and unity. Voters are sheep.
Correct!”
It doesn’t help that McCain is worse at speeches then debates, and he’s pretty darn awful in debates.
The Tax cuts will expire, the War on Terror will be lost!! OUR ECONOMY WILL TANK!!!!
I don’t think McCain will let the tax cuts expire, and this is from someone that won’t vote for McCain. I don’t think we’d “lose the War on Terror” under McCain or Hillary. If the economy tanks, better it be under a Democrat than a Republican, so the Democrat gets the blame.
It doesn’t help that McCain is worse at speeches then debates, and he’s pretty darn awful in debates.
I think that, excepting Ron Paul, McCain may very well have been the worst orator in the entire field. Rudy, at his peak, was probably our best, although Huckabee’s quite good. Romney has a high floor but a low ceiling. Rudy seemed to have a lower floor than Romney does, though.
I think that’s a reasonable assessment. Though, I’d say that Romney gets the award for “most improved” on both the debate and speech front. I didn’t think he won a debate until something like November, and since then has won 80% of them. And he’s started giving memorable speeches. You can tell he works on this stuff. I’m not terribly worried about the contrast between a Romney convention speech and an Obama convention speech.
This just seems so bizarre to have such a shift for the “underdog” to be reversing his luck in CA, I would have to speculate that we are really beginning to see the base rally around the anti-McCain.
“If the economy tanks, better it be under a Democrat than a Republican, so the Democrat gets the blame.”
True, but the Dems and media will spin it and claim they inherited it from Bush and the Republicans. Remember, nothing is ever the fault of the democrats, nothing.
I think that’s a reasonable assessment. Though, I’d say that Romney gets the award for “most improved†on both the debate and speech front. I didn’t think he won a debate until something like November, and since then has won 80% of them. And he’s started giving memorable speeches. You can tell he works on this stuff. I’m not terribly worried about the contrast between a Romney convention speech and an Obama convention speech.
I agree with all of that except for the contrast between an Obama convention speech and a Romney convention speech. Obama’s in an entirely different league when he gives a good speech, and his convention speech will be the speech of his life.
It’s not that Romney’s a poor orator. It’s that Obama’s a fantastic orator. The contrast between good and amazing can be wider than the contrast between good and bad.
” would have to speculate that we are really beginning to see the base rally around the anti-McCain.”
Let’s see how things look where Romney didn’t spend $2M. Also Romney was closer in CA to begin with. The field poll showed him only down four points on 1/25.
No! You Rombots really need to stop with your pre-Super Tuesday delegate counts, okay? Just like you were boasting about your delegate lead after New Hampshire — the early contests are not about the delgates! They’re about momentum! Delegate counts after only the early states are meaningless. Check back in 48 hours with the new delegate count.
Irrelevant. No one thinks of Reagan in that way except for people like us.
I’m guessing you’re referring to conservatives’ image of Reagan as their champion on social issues, and not his legacy as a fighter of communism. In that case, you’re correct. Except for the activist bases of each party, Reagan is largely perceived as a warrior against communism, which is justified since his dealings with the Soviet Union were his greatest and most long-lasting achievements. All else fades as we get further from his presidency. Most relatively apolitical people (arguably the majority of the population, and the kind that need to be won over in order to succeed in a general election) don’t give a rat’s ass about the “Reagan coalition” and the sanctity of his legacy. They remember “tear down this wall!” and “morning in America”, as well as Iran Contra. They’re looking for someone to deliver performances like those first two and who will keep away from scandals like the latter. Barack Obama has perceived this, which is why his discussion of Reagan rings true to a large extent.
True, but the Dems and media will spin it and claim they inherited it from Bush and the Republicans. Remember, nothing is ever the fault of the democrats, nothing.
Hm. Didn’t think of that. That could work, too, given how much the public detests Bush.
I’m guessing you’re referring to conservatives’ image of Reagan as their champion on social issues, and not his legacy as a fighter of communism. In that case, you’re correct. Except for the activist bases of each party, Reagan is largely perceived as a warrior against communism, which is justified since his dealings with the Soviet Union were his greatest and most long-lasting achievements. All else fades as we get further from his presidency. Most relatively apolitical people (arguably the majority of the population, and the kind that need to be won over in order to succeed in a general election) don’t give a rat’s ass about the “Reagan coalition†and the sanctity of his legacy. They remember “tear down this wall!†and “morning in Americaâ€, as well as Iran Contra. They’re looking for someone to deliver performances like those first two and who will keep away from scandals like the latter. Barack Obama has perceived this, which is why his discussion of Reagan rings true to a large extent.
I meant that when Joe Schmo hears the name “Ronald Reagan,” he doesn’t think “Tireless party activist that worked against Communism for decades before finally becoming President!”
They think of his legacy as a conservative President that had a strong sense of patriotism and unity behind him. They think of the morning in America and the shining city on a hill. If Obama could successfully set himself up as the parallel on the left to that, then that’s all that would matter in him becoming a ‘Reagan of the left.’
#77 McCain needs to basically wrap this up tomorrow, otherwise he will find himself fighting from state to state against the conservative movement. If he doesn’t slide by in a major way tomorrow, then he’ll be beated to death after Feb 5th.
McCain may “win” tomorrow, but I don’t think he’s going to put this thing away.
#77 McCain needs to basically wrap this up tomorrow, otherwise he will find himself fighting from state to state against the conservative movement. If he doesn’t slide by in a major way tomorrow, then he’ll be beated to death after Feb 5th.
Romney suffers from an inability to understand that speeches have highs and lows, peaks and valleys. He doesn’t modulate his tone very much; he doesn’t slow down to let people a particularly moving passage, or speed up to incite them into a frenzy. I think this is more a result of the style of speech he gives. They’re very clinically done, and really terrific for their type. But, their type has distinct limits. I’d be interested to see what he’d do with the sort of peaks and valleys speeches Obama gives. Right now, Romney writes alot of his speeches; in a general, maybe he’ll let someone like Peggy Noonan take over; someone who understands the more traditional techniques of oratory.
Romney suffers from an inability to understand that speeches have highs and lows, peaks and valleys. He doesn’t modulate his tone very much; he doesn’t slow down to let people a particularly moving passage, or speed up to incite them into a frenzy. I think this is more a result of the style of speech he gives. They’re very clinically done, and really terrific for their type. But, their type has distinct limits. I’d be interested to see what he’d do with the sort of peaks and valleys speeches Obama gives. Right now, Romney writes alot of his speeches; in a general, maybe he’ll let someone like Peggy Noonan take over; someone who understands the more traditional techniques of oratory.
“Romney suffers from an inability to understand that speeches have highs and lows, peaks and valleys. He doesn’t modulate his tone very much; he doesn’t slow down to let people a particularly moving passage, or speed up to incite them into a frenzy. I think this is more a result of the style of speech he gives”
That reminds me of the “Freedom Requires Religion” speech. He was talking too quickly at first. Eventually he slowed down.
Perhaps I’m getting too old, and maybe there really is a generational divide when it comes to Reagan. While there was just as much (if not more) leftist opposition to his aggressive foreign policy as there is with Bush, a large part of his support among independents and Democrats, at the time, came from the fact that after years of Ford and Carter, as well as the debacle in Vietnam, a lot of Americans were getting sick of being kicked around in the rest of the world. People around here forget, but Reagan began his race in 1980 trailing Carter by quite a bit, and only had success after he was able to overcome his previous image as an arch-conservative styled after Goldwater (which happened largely on account of his genial demeanor on the campaign trail and in debates.) People wanted, and got, someone with a little more backbone than Carter. I’m afraid those who weren’t politically aware during the Reagan years (not you, but a large part of the blogosphere, to be sure), have a distorted view of what the man stood for and accomplished.
Back to topic: Mitt was ahead in the ARG California poll released yesterday by 33 to 32. Today’s Zogby shows Mitt ahead in the state 40 to 32. If McCain’s ceiling in the state is in the low 30’s, it could be a rout. A major victory in California would change the campaign dynamic going forward in a major way.
Perhaps I’m getting too old, and maybe there really is a generational divide when it comes to Reagan. While there was just as much (if not more) leftist opposition to his aggressive foreign policy as there is with Bush, a large part of his support among independents and Democrats, at the time, came from the fact that after years of Ford and Carter, as well as the debacle in Vietnam, a lot of Americans were getting sick of being kicked around in the rest of the world. People around here forget, but Reagan began his race in 1980 trailing Carter by quite a bit, and only had success after he was able to overcome his previous image as an arch-conservative styled after Goldwater (which happened largely on account of his genial demeanor on the campaign trail and in debates.) People wanted, and got, someone with a little more backbone than Carter. I’m afraid those who weren’t politically aware during the Reagan years (not you, but a large part of the blogosphere, to be sure), have a distorted view of what the man stood for and accomplished.
I wasn’t politically aware during the Reagan years because I was not alive when Ronald Reagan was President.
The fact that a genial manner can overcome an otherwise very openly ideological worldview should make us worry about Barack Obama.
ThatLibertarianGuy Says:
February 4th, 2008 at 9:24 am
while “political analysts†will downplay the Mitt win and talk up the delegates.
Well, this is a race for delegates, after all.
Now you say in #77:
No! You Rombots really need to stop with your pre-Super Tuesday delegate counts, okay? Just like you were boasting about your delegate lead after New Hampshire — the early contests are not about the delgates! They’re about momentum! Delegate counts after only the early states are meaningless. Check back in 48 hours with the new delegate count.
Obama raised $32 million in January alone.
He will crush the Republican nominee.
Romney will be 68 next time het gets a chance to run.
The presidency as much as would like to to be about competence is about symbols.
Bush won because he symbolized bringing honor back to the White House after the Clinton debacle.
Romney has not figured out what he symbolizes and the “vision think” is woefully lacking.
What is Romney’s vision for the next 4 years?
He could be talking about a vision of a better world but he is ceding that to Obama’s oratory.
Romney could be Clinton but all three will be beaten by Obama if they don’t start combining vision with policies.
Big S, I wasn’t that politically aware back in the Carter years and the Reagan years, but I think you’re right. The spirit of the nation had gone from capitulation in Vietnam, a scandalous Nixon presidency, horrible inflation, before we wound up with Carter as something “new” that would restore faith in government. Yet other than that, Carter and the Democrats only offered capitulation and “convergence” with the Soviets. The spirit of the nation was one of defeat.
More than anything else, Reagan offered hope and optimism, strength and security — that was most of what I remember of him. Reagan led effectively thanks in large part to his communication skills.
As a kid in junior high and high school at the time, I paid little attention to politics. But I don’t remember the spirit of the Reagan years being about libertarian idealism that much. It was more about the idea that America did not simply have to accept high inflation, high unemployment, expansive communism, and ever higher taxes. It was a repudiation of Carter’s summary of the ’70s.
[...] is for sure, although McCain seems to want to give the proverbial finger to Romney, the voters in California and Georgia seem to be flipping it [...]
Normally I wouldn’t give Zogby a second nod, but he called FL exactly. I think this is big symbolically (I don’t think the delegate counts from CA will be that different) for Romney- if he wins CA and wins the West, does well in the south (1’st-2′nd in GA, TN, and maybe MO), wins small northern states (Alaska, Montana, North Dakota), and wins Mass. and maybe Delaware, he’s very much still in this. I think a CA/GA win will be especially powerful for Romney (again, symbolically- not necessarily delegate wise). Romney should fight hard in Arizona- another huge symbolic victory if somehow it happened. Even if it was close it will be good for Romney. I see a lot of opportunity here, but if he can’t pull out some solid wins in the aforementioned states, he really is probably done for. I’m hoping!
Which is it? Do Delegates count or not? - The Real Truth
What on Earth did I say that was contradictory? It’s a race for delegates on Super Tuesday; the early states are not about securing delegates, but momentum. From here on out, the race for momentum is over. It’s all about scrambling together delegates.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Romney winning CA would certainly change things.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Zogby has done a good job this cycle. Romney may win here. We’ll see. The win would probably be much more meaningful if he didn’t try to run to the right on immigration though. If I were Romney I’d be kicking myself for that.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:02 am
It isn’t over until it’s over. Patriots fans learned that last night!
February 4th, 2008 at 9:03 am
But Cwpete I disagree. The dynamics aren’t going to change because I suspect McCain does very well in getting delegates here - whether he wins or loses. Romney is going to need to make a showing somewhere else to rack up those delegates.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Couple of thoughts:
1. I agree that in terms of delegates, Mitt needs to get more elsewhere.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:05 am
It isn’t over until it’s over. Patriots fans learned that last night!
I am SO glad that there are only roughly two days between the end of the Super Bowl and the end of Super Tuesday so I won’t have to put up with this already-cliched analogy for too long.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Come on TLG, lighten up.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Furthermore, it doesn’t even work as an analogy: McCain has not had a ‘perfect season.’
February 4th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Man, this is good news.
Adam,
I don’t think Romney would have done as well if he’d held a less conservative immigration position. You keep on saying this, but I think it’s demonstrably false. In Florida, he got 49% of those were concerned about immigration. McCain got like 15%. Around 18% of people were concerned about immigration. In Florida, he got about 15% of the Hispanic vote. McCain got around 505. Around 15% of people were Hispanics. Obviously there’s some overlap here, but not much based on those numbers. And if you actually change these breakdowns so that McCain and Romney split the “concerned about immigration vote” and the “Hispanic vote”, Romney actually comes out worse. The same thing will happen in California. Romney will lose Hispanics by 20 points or more. But, he’ll win an even bigger majority among the larger segment of the population that cares about immigration. It’s potentially a similar sort of trade off that Clinton has made in utterly alienating the black vote, but admittedly on a smaller scale. Sure, losing huge percentages of the black vote in places like South Carolina hurts, but if you can get whites and Hispanics to rally to you, in a series of Democratic primaries, you’re going to win more often then you’ll lose.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Come on TLG, lighten up.
But I’ve already seen the analogy used by approximately 348,193 people.
Here’s what’s going to happen: McCain will win tomorrow. Sorrrrryyyy.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Matt,
But in a district-by-district contest where there are more blue than red districts and blue districts count for just as much as red districts, and many Hispanics live in those blue districts, and Romney has a history of losing among Hispanics 51-15 I have to think that what you might plausibly say would be a 20 point loss among that group of voters is going to get magnified in district after district. I don’t see how it couldn’t.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:15 am
The worse news here is that Zogby now has Obama up by 6 in California, up in Missouri, and up in Georgia. I’m thinking Clinton’s about to get TK’Oed by a vibrant young black man, and we’re going to send up a 71 year old white man to do battle with him. Sigh.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Matthew E. Miller — Except that even if Romney were to pull this miraculous upset off based on immigration, he’d have done it only by alienating so many people that he can’t possibly win in a general election. And he’s got to be extremely careful about what he chooses to moderate in the general election run, because he’s already walking on eggshells with the ‘flip-flopper’ label…
Most people actually do support some sort of path to citizenship. They just want the border secured first. Romney is saying — No, we have to send them all home. As we know, this position is popular with and of paramount importance to the American people, which is why JD Hayworth is still a Congressman, Tom Tancredo’s bid took off like a rocket, and John McCain is performing so poorly in the Race 4 2008.
The Conservative Base != A winning general election coalition
February 4th, 2008 at 9:17 am
The worse news here is that Zogby now has Obama up by 6 in California, up in Missouri, and up in Georgia. I’m thinking Clinton’s about to get TK’Oed by a vibrant young black man, and we’re going to send up a 71 year old white man to do battle with him. Sigh.
Much better to send a phony, flip-flopping, self-funded Mormon that eats KFC with silverware!
February 4th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Matthew Miller, I’m for Romney. That is clear. Having said that, you are correct that Romney will gain more votes among anti-immigration people than he will lose among Hispanics and will probably win California, but it is in the general election that this could get problematic. If Romney is the nominee he will get crushed among Hispanics and that could hurt him. Regardless of the political implications, opposing amnesty is the right position. We shouldn’t reward people who break laws. I think it’s a rough general election issue though.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:17 am
We are screwed in 2008. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we can plan out what we’re going to do over the next four years to fight back against the Democrats and prepare for 2012.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Couple of thoughts:
1. I agree that in terms of delegates, Mitt needs to get more elsewhere.
2. Regardless of the delegates alloted in CA, however, Mitt winning the largest state in the country would send a pretty strong signal. But how does the media play it? here is my guess: CNN downplays and highlights delegates because they are big McCain fans apparently, MSNBC is likely the fairest but I seem to think they lean toward Mit, but I think they will report CA the fairest, FOX will be split-Hannity will trumpet a great win for Mitt and invite the terrribly awful Anne Coulter onto his show, while “political analysts” will downplay the Mitt win and talk up the delegates. I will be unfailingly disgusted with both Fox and CNN and will have no where to watch between 8-9EST when Olbermann is on, he is terrible too.
3. Does anyone else find it ironic that the guy from the east coast seems to have a strangle hold on the western states, except for his opponents home state, and the guy from the (near) West coast has a strangle hold on the the eastern states except for his opponents home state? fascinating. (maybe I will blog about that).
4. How many districts does Mitt win in CA? This is what is really important.
5. Do election returns out east that will close 3 hours before they do in CA, have any effect?
6. Despite a win in CA, how much more must Mitt win before he considers staying in for the long haul?
Personally, I have resigned myself to the fact that McCain will be our nominee. Guaranteed? No. But likely. I don’t necessarily find it a bad thing as I think that the Dem candidate will win in November no matter whaty. This election is not about ideas and policy, it is about change, you don’t even need any substance (I’m looking at you Obama). So why not throw a sacrificial lamb like McCain at the dems in his last chance to be Pres, then be done with him? ) Personally, if/when McCain becomes the nominee I will have to think long and hard about whether or not I vote for him. Would I rather have McCain for 8 years? What kind of Pres would he be? Where would I see our country headed during that time? or would I rather see Hillary be Pres for four years, let her do her damage and rile up the GOP base and hope that the GOP is smart enough to nominate a person who would truly be a great president.
I just don’t see McCain being anything more than a mediocre President in the scheme of things. I also think he would lose re-election in 4 years. I think McCain’s presidency would be as forgotton in history as Benjamin Harrison or Warren Harding. I think his presidency would be a poor economy, nominating moderate-liberal judges, and more war.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:22 am
While the age contrast could hurt McCain against Obama, I would much rather run against Obama, whether it is with McCain or Romney. Regardless of how charismatic he is, he can’t win a general election. He is too far to the left. The Republicans will cream him with his liberal positions of driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, his plans to meet with dictators without preconditions. Democrats only win when they nominate moderates like Carter and Bill Clinton. They don’t win with George McGovern types which is what Obama is, except more charismatic. Hillary is liberal too, but she is more dangerous because she will triangulate and she is a much tougher person than Obama.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:24 am
while “political analysts†will downplay the Mitt win and talk up the delegates.
Well, this is a race for delegates, after all.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:24 am
#16, TLG,
I agree mostly, and if that is the case, I would rather Romney lose the nom to McCain, making Mitt the “next” guy in the party, thus making him the early front runner in 2012 should he decide to run. We know that GOPers always nominate the early front runnner, thus Mitt is the guy in 2012. Good enough for me.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Democrats only win when they nominate moderates like Carter and Bill Clinton.
I guess anyone that believes in Jesus and is from a state south of Maryland is a “moderate”? (Paging John Edwards…)
February 4th, 2008 at 9:26 am
I agree mostly, and if that is the case, I would rather Romney lose the nom to McCain, making Mitt the “next†guy in the party, thus making him the early front runner in 2012 should he decide to run. We know that GOPers always nominate the early front runnner, thus Mitt is the guy in 2012. Good enough for me.
I strongly disagree that Mitt would be “the guy” in 2012 if he gets the nomination and loses this time.
In fact, I’d rather have Mitt as the nominee because it would make him go away in 2012, lest he be tempted to run again.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:26 am
TLG, that is one of the nuttiest things I’ve heard you say. We should just write off an election nine months before it and worry about an election 4 years and 9 months away? That’s crazy! I agree with Swint on some things. I don’t think McCain will be mediocre though. He will be an above average President but probably not in the top ten or anything like that.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Hillary is liberal too, but she is more dangerous because she will triangulate and she is a much tougher person than Obama.
I think that this makes her far less dangerous for the country.
Part of what I fear about Obama is that, if he’s successful, he could become their Reagan, repackaging liberalism with a smiley face and making it appear to be what ‘unites’ people.
Never, ever, ever underestimate the stupidity and emotionalism of the American electorate.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Clarence,
Reagan was pretty far to the right to. Obama’s could be overcome potentially, and he could be turned into the hard-left liberal he is. But, not with John McCain at the top of our ticket. The contrast is too stark. I’m not convinced Romney can manage it either, by the way. But, at least Romney’s a better debater then Obama and is energetic.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Clarence you fail to account for two things: 1. Voter stupidity, which is prevalent and 2. Voters are l;ess concerned about ideology and policy this election, they want a fresh face who is charismatic. If this were not the case Barack would have been dead already, he has no substance whatsoever.
#19, I agree and I was not trying to complain to much by writing that, however it will be downplayed because MItt won and McCain lost. I McCain won CA and lost the delegates there to Mitt, they would play up the McCain win. That is what bothers me. I just want honest journalism, and amazingly, MSNBC has been the most honest (note the word most).
February 4th, 2008 at 9:29 am
TLG, that is one of the nuttiest things I’ve heard you say. We should just write off an election nine months before it and worry about an election 4 years and 9 months away? That’s crazy! I agree with Swint on some things. I don’t think McCain will be mediocre though. He will be an above average President but probably not in the top ten or anything like that.
I also said that we should be concerned with what we should do over the next four years, but whateverrrrr.
I’m not convinced that either of our guys can win.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:29 am
TLG, I agree with you that Clinton wasn’t really a moderate. Carter was pretty liberal too but to a lesser degree than McGovern or Mondale. Hillary is not a moderate either, but a liberal. But all three PORTRAY themselves as moderates. Obama doesn’t even pretend to be moderate. That makes Hillary tougher to beat. People don’t always look beneath the surface. As far as Edwards, he is a Southerner who believes in Jesus, but I would categorize him as more liberal than the Clintons, especially on issues like trade.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:30 am
22-And that is why I (may) want Mitt to lose the nomination. If Mitt wins the nom, but loses the general, I wish Mitt would never have won the nom. Losing the general hurts a candidate politically more than losing the nom.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Reagan was pretty far to the right to. Obama’s could be overcome potentially, and he could be turned into the hard-left liberal he is. But, not with John McCain at the top of our ticket. The contrast is too stark. I’m not convinced Romney can manage it either, by the way. But, at least Romney’s a better debater then Obama and is energetic.
Reagan was far to the right, but we were coming out of four years of Carter. We could ‘get away’ with a Reagan because of how disillusioned the country was with liberalism. Right now, the country is up in arms over Bush, and people think that he represents hardline conservatism. So what I fear is that Democrats can ‘get away’ with an Obama — the #1 liberal in the Senate.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:31 am
My guess is McCain would stand the better chance against Hillary, and Romney against Obama. I just don’t see McCain looking that great against Obama, and I don’t know how Romney stacks up against such a dirty campaigner like Clinton.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:31 am
It is interesting that Dems have to run to the right to win. They all try to be more republican.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:32 am
TLG, I agree with you that Clinton wasn’t really a moderate. Carter was pretty liberal too but to a lesser degree than McGovern or Mondale. Hillary is not a moderate either, but a liberal. But all three PORTRAY themselves as moderates. Obama doesn’t even pretend to be moderate. That makes Hillary tougher to beat. People don’t always look beneath the surface. As far as Edwards, he is a Southerner who believes in Jesus, but I would categorize him as more liberal than the Clintons, especially on issues like trade.
I was referring to Carter, really. No, he was no Mondale, but he’s a pretty liberal guy! I don’t think that he could get away with any sort of ‘moderate’ image were he not a Christian from the South.
Obama definitely pretends to be moderate, and he seems to be getting away with it so far, which is why I think he’d be easier in a general election than Hillary Clinton.
Obama is at his ceiling; Clinton, her floor.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:32 am
28. Good points. You loose the general, I don’t think the party will give you another crack at it.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:32 am
22-And that is why I (may) want Mitt to lose the nomination. If Mitt wins the nom, but loses the general, I wish Mitt would never have won the nom. Losing the general hurts a candidate politically more than losing the nom.
Oh, woops. I misread what I was replying to in my 22. Sorry.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:33 am
TLG, I’m not “convinced” they will definitely win either, but I’m not ruling out either man beating Hillary or Obama. Matthew Miller, Reagan was far to the right, but that didn’t matter because this is basically a conservative country. I don’t think being far to the right is anywhere near as damaging as being far to the left. Because this is a conservative country, Republicans win most Presidential elections by default. However, Carter made it in because of Watergate. Clinton made it because of the 1991-1992 recession, Buchanan’s challenge to Bush which divided the party, and to a lesser degree, the Perot factor. In 1996, since Clinton was moderate enough and the economy was good, he was able to beat Dole, who was a lackluster candidate, but I believe this is fundamentally a conservative country, and unless there is a special circumstance, Republicans generally win the Presidency.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Well, there was a point made yesterday on the news that said the only thing Obama has run or shown success and leadership at was the Harvard Law Review.
Romney could trump that, despite all that lovely fluffy rhetoric that leaves people blank as to what he actually talked about.
The interesting thing is that Senators are generally NOT elected to the presidency - they are politicians - that haven’t GOVERNED or RAN anything in most cases. Mitt is the only governor amongst 3 senators in the frontrunner’s left. None of these people has done anything but voted or run a committee of a handful of people. Hmmmm
GO ROMNEY - may this be a nice turning point for you!
February 4th, 2008 at 9:33 am
31-I largely agree. I think Mitt could hold his own against Hillary, mostly because of the spite people hold for her. ALthough, McCain fares much better against Hillary than Mitt does. I see McCain v Hillary being Man v woman election. Woman vote goes strongly to Hill and Male vote to the guy who was a tortured POW being attacked by a socialist woman.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Clarence,
First things first. McCain’s nomination would be a disaster for the party, and it would be an even bigger disaster if he won. This was Coulter’s reason for campaigning for Hillary. She doesn’t want the GOP to have the responsibility for the chaos that would result from McCain’s statist policies. So if we can avoid a McCain nomination, we’ve saved ourselves from a fate worse than death. Winning in the general is definitely possible, but it’s way too early to predict one way or another. Weird things can happen in the middle of general election campaigns. How did Gore lose in 2000 to W? He was the sitting vice president of a very popular 2-term Democrat administration running against a man widely portrayed in the media as being dumber than a bucket of rocks. Forget about the general right now, and concentrate on doing the right thing.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:35 am
TLG, Obama is not pretending very hard as far as I’m concerned. He supports driver’s licenses for illegals and meeting with dictators without preconditions. He has embraced the Kennedys. That isn’t what I consider pretending to be moderate.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:35 am
TLG, I’m not “convinced†they will definitely win either, but I’m not ruling out either man beating Hillary or Obama. Matthew Miller, Reagan was far to the right, but that didn’t matter because this is basically a conservative country. I don’t think being far to the right is anywhere near as damaging as being far to the left. Because this is a conservative country, Republicans win most Presidential elections by default. However, Carter made it in because of Watergate. Clinton made it because of the 1991-1992 recession, Buchanan’s challenge to Bush which divided the party, and to a lesser degree, the Perot factor. In 1996, since Clinton was moderate enough and the economy was good, he was able to beat Dole, who was a lackluster candidate, but I believe this is fundamentally a conservative country, and unless there is a special circumstance, Republicans generally win the Presidency.
I’d refer you to my #30 on Reagan.
This is a moderate nation that thinks that it’s center-right. If you check the polls, most Americans want to compromise on the issues — civil unions, abortion with restrictions, closed borders with a path to citizenship, more government in health care but not mandates, pulling out of Iraq but not staying indefinitely, etc…
February 4th, 2008 at 9:36 am
TLG,
I mostly agree, but I think this is more a reflection of stupendous weakness of our field and the true desperation of the times. To compare Obama to Reagan is insulting. Reagan worked in the trenches fighting for conservatism and fighting against communism for 30 years before he decided to run for President. He was in millions of American homes, running occasionally political skits on his GE Theater show. He was a huge contributor in keeping communism mostly out of the motion picture industry. Obama’s a Johnny come lately pretty face and powerful voice, who’s done nothing of significance in his life. I hope they continue these ludicrous Reagan comparisons. Then someone can say “Reagan fought the communists for 30 years before running for president. He campaigned for candidates before he’d ever run for office. He debated and won against luminaries like Bobby Kennedy, when he’d barely signed his first bill as Governor. You Barack, are no Ronald Reagan. That actor had 10 times the experience you have”.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Does the fact that Coulter endorsed Mitt make anyone else like Mitt less. I love the guy and think he would be an incredible president, but the coulter endorsement is one that makes me sick. She is the worst person in the GOP.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:36 am
pulling out of Iraq but not staying indefinitely, etc…
Oops. I meant “staying in Iraq, but not indefinitely” — Haha. Pulling out but not staying indefinitely makes no sense.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:36 am
I think Obama will be strongly hurt or even destroyed whenever attack ads come out showing his undying support for “abortion” OUTSIDE of the womb. All we would have to do is remind the American electorate that any person who supports starving already-born American citizens living outside of the womb due to a botched abortion does not have the moral integrity needed to be president.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:36 am
*lovely fluffy rhetoric referring to Obama on my post
February 4th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Dave, you are preaching to the choir. I support Romney, not McCain. However, I will support McCain without question if he is the nominee. I don’t think he’s as bad as Coulter is making him out to be, but I agree that Romney is much better.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Clarence,
I think it’s less that Obama is “pretending” to be a moderate than it is that so far he hasn’t really tackled any divisive issue. He talks in generic platitude about feel-good things like “bringing the country together”. Sooner or later he’s going to need to get specific and answer for his record. Then he’ll look a lot less moderate.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:37 am
TLG, Obama is not pretending very hard as far as I’m concerned. He supports driver’s licenses for illegals and meeting with dictators without preconditions. He has embraced the Kennedys. That isn’t what I consider pretending to be moderate.
Doesn’t matter; his rhetoric is of unity and togetherness and that seems to be trumping his (relatively unknown) stances on the issues so far. Can he get away with that for eight months? I don’t think so. But I think he’s doing his damndest to make himself seem like the more ‘moderate,’ ‘electable’ choice.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Too bad CA cant be winner take all like FL.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:39 am
TLG, valid point about Obama, and I also agree this is a center-right nation. Not a right-wing nation, not a centrist nation, but center right. I don’t think Reagan was too far to the right to win, but I do think Obama is too far to the left. He can’t get by on platitudes forever.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:41 am
I mostly agree, but I think this is more a reflection of stupendous weakness of our field and the true desperation of the times. To compare Obama to Reagan is insulting. Reagan worked in the trenches fighting for conservatism and fighting against communism for 30 years before he decided to run for President. He was in millions of American homes, running occasionally political skits on his GE Theater show. He was a huge contributor in keeping communism mostly out of the motion picture industry.
Irrelevant. No one thinks of Reagan in that way except for people like us.
Obama’s a Johnny come lately pretty face and powerful voice, who’s done nothing of significance in his life. I hope they continue these ludicrous Reagan comparisons. Then someone can say “Reagan fought the communists for 30 years before running for president. He campaigned for candidates before he’d ever run for office. He debated and won against luminaries like Bobby Kennedy, when he’d barely signed his first bill as Governor. You Barack, are no Ronald Reagan. That actor had 10 times the experience you haveâ€.
The comparison is not in calling him a hard worker or a dedicated activist. It’s in speaking of his potential impact on American politics; in reshaping liberalism and packaging it with a unifying smiley face, just as Ronald Reagan was able to cast conservatism as the optimistic, patriotic ideology for millions. Does the phrase “Obama Republicans” not scare you at all? Ideology and a history of working in the party doesn’t matter to anyone except people like us. I know people that voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 that would consider voting for Obama this time around — and I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why, until I take off my ideological glasses, which are not being worn by the general electorate.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:41 am
I will say, the dems would have been unstoppable if they were smart enough to nominate someone that had experience and was not hated by half the country. Their two candidates both have MAJOR weaknesses that could spell doom for them this year. If they were smart they would have nominated Biden or Richardson of the crop that run or if they were really smart they would have talked Mark Warner into running and given him the keys. The dems had everything going for them this year and could be jeopardizing it with a candidate with no experience whatsoever or a candidate that is vilified by half the country. I will say, dems don’t really think things through. I think the GOP batch of candidates was much stronger than the dem batch, but that gap is made up for due to the current political climate and the tiredness voters have for Bush and GOP. It will be tough hurdle to overcome for the GOP, one that I would be surprised if they won..
February 4th, 2008 at 9:42 am
#43 No,Mitt didn’t seek Ann’s endorsement and she has made it clear that Duncan Hunter was her first choice. Her vote is less for Mitt but against McCain.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:43 am
TLG, valid point about Obama, and I also agree this is a center-right nation. Not a right-wing nation, not a centrist nation, but center right. I don’t think Reagan was too far to the right to win, but I do think Obama is too far to the left. He can’t get by on platitudes forever.
Yeah, that’s what I’ve been saying for a bit here. Obama will either be a spectacular success or a huge bomb in the general election, I think, against McCain. I can see things going both ways.
I disagree, as I said, that we’re a center-right nation. Most Americans deplore the political process, partisan debate, and the like, and want compromise on all of the issues. We’re most often center-right on religious issues. Prayer in schools, 10 Commandments in the courtrooms, sexual (not gay rights) issues. On economic issues, we tend to be more left-leaning. A dismal combo, from my perspective, of course…haha.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Clarence,
I think Hillary Clinton is the best campaigner out of both fields of candidates. She does more with relatively lackluster skills then anyone since Nixon. The fact that Obama’s managed to “get by on platitudes” while campaigning against her should give you pause. I’d also note that we shouldn’t underestimate his substance. His speeches are utterly devoid of substance, but somehow compelling. He talks about serious issues in serious ways during the debates, but looks utterly dull doing so.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:46 am
TLG, you are spot on about Obama. He would be the tougher kill than Hillary. People, right now, have this strange connection with him and regardless of what he says or his ideas are, they still love him. Fortunately Americans have much shorter attention spans and love affairs than we have in the past. The GOP needs to hope that if Obama wins the nom, they can get that flowery and perfect image of Obama out of the public’s mind fast.
Also, if he wins the nom, he will be giving the key note speech at the Dem convention, and that may just well lock up the presidency for him. It will be watched by millions and people will have no idea what he said, but only care how he said it and heard key words of hope and unity. Voters are sheep.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:48 am
#53 The republicans have by far the best candidates, but there were too many of them. We are too busy trashing our candidates down that we are most likely going to nominate the least conservative and the one with most baggage for the Dems to destroy.
Interesting a lot of Dems look at McCain as the center of their party.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I’m extremely confident Mitt can win against either of those candidates. Its just my humble opinion.
Once Barry is fully vetted, people will come running to Mitt. The fact that his brother is a leader of Islamic extremist alone is enough to drive millions from him.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:50 am
If this is the trend nationwide Romney will also carry Tennessee, Georgia and Missouri where the most recent polls have him tied with McCain:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/most_recent_rasmussen_reports_primary_polling
Romney hasn’t campaigned in California much so I’m guessing McCain is in for a big surprise tomorrow.
In any event, McCain is screwed. His dream of a super Tuesday sweep is out the window. The race will go on. With Huck dropping out soon and the Vietnam Veterans for Truth going national on TV things are about to get very interesting.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:50 am
TLG,
I understand that, and yes an “Obama Republican” is a frightening thought. I’m simply saying that if Obama and the media to continue to refer to him as the “Reagan of the left” we’re going to have a potential opening. I mean, the Democratic party and the media spent all of 1979 and 1980 turning Reagan into a buffoonish warmonger, without any experience to speak of. And until the last few weeks of the campaign, they seemed to be succeeding. But, in the end, people woke up and realized they were being sold a bill of goods, and that Reagan was plenty intelligent, not so wildly conservative, and plenty experienced. We don’t even seem to be trying to do this sort of thing to Obama, when he genuinely is inexperienced and radically liberal. There’s some sort of disconnect here.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Also, if he wins the nom, he will be giving the key note speech at the Dem convention, and that may just well lock up the presidency for him. It will be watched by millions and people will have no idea what he said, but only care how he said it and heard key words of hope and unity. Voters are sheep.
Correct!
February 4th, 2008 at 9:51 am
WE CAN’T WAIT UNTIL 2012 PEOPLE!!!
ARE YOU NUTS!!!!
A democratic Congress matched up with Obama or Hillary (or McCain) will RUIN this country!!!!
The Tax cuts will expire, the War on Terror will be lost!! OUR ECONOMY WILL TANK!!!!
Think 2008 Olympics Bejing people!!! Think of what all that free press about the Olympics will that do for him, JUST 2 MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTION!!! FIGHT!!!!
Mitt Romney can win this!!! HE WILL WIN IT IF WE GIVE HIM THE CHANCE!!!!
DON’T GIVE UP!!! FIGHT!!!
February 4th, 2008 at 9:53 am
I understand that, and yes an “Obama Republican†is a frightening thought. I’m simply saying that if Obama and the media to continue to refer to him as the “Reagan of the left†we’re going to have a potential opening. I mean, the Democratic party and the media spent all of 1979 and 1980 turning Reagan into a buffoonish warmonger, without any experience to speak of. And until the last few weeks of the campaign, they seemed to be succeeding. But, in the end, people woke up and realized they were being sold a bill of goods, and that Reagan was plenty intelligent, not so wildly conservative, and plenty experienced. We don’t even seem to be trying to do this sort of thing to Obama, when he genuinely is inexperienced and radically liberal. There’s some sort of disconnect here.
There isn’t. People don’t want to see Obama attacked. They like him so much personally that they almost take personal offense at seeing such a figure be attacked. He’s preaching hope, unity, and togetherness — who could attack that? So what we have to do is tear down that image, first and foremost. We have to make that claim look ridiculous before we can go after him on anything else, because as long as he has that aura of unity, we can’t hit him effectively on other things. Thankfully, he seems to be doing our work for us — MoveOn.org and the National Journal ranking are amazing gifts to our party in the general election.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:53 am
“Also, if he wins the nom, he will be giving the key note speech at the Dem convention, and that may just well lock up the presidency for him. It will be watched by millions and people will have no idea what he said, but only care how he said it and heard key words of hope and unity. Voters are sheep.
Correct!”
It doesn’t help that McCain is worse at speeches then debates, and he’s pretty darn awful in debates.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:55 am
The Tax cuts will expire, the War on Terror will be lost!! OUR ECONOMY WILL TANK!!!!
I don’t think McCain will let the tax cuts expire, and this is from someone that won’t vote for McCain. I don’t think we’d “lose the War on Terror” under McCain or Hillary. If the economy tanks, better it be under a Democrat than a Republican, so the Democrat gets the blame.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Arg,
“Romney hasn’t campaigned in California much so I’m guessing McCain is in for a big surprise tomorrow.”
Romney bought a $2M ad buy in CA.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:56 am
It doesn’t help that McCain is worse at speeches then debates, and he’s pretty darn awful in debates.
I think that, excepting Ron Paul, McCain may very well have been the worst orator in the entire field. Rudy, at his peak, was probably our best, although Huckabee’s quite good. Romney has a high floor but a low ceiling. Rudy seemed to have a lower floor than Romney does, though.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:58 am
DELEGATE COUNT (as per CNN 2-4-08)
MCCAIN 97
ROMNEY 92
HUCKABEE 29
PAUL 6
Ain’t that close?
February 4th, 2008 at 9:58 am
I will say that if Mitt gets the nom, he will also give a great speech at the GOP convention the very next weekend. would this at all offset Obamania?
February 4th, 2008 at 10:00 am
TLG,
I think that’s a reasonable assessment. Though, I’d say that Romney gets the award for “most improved” on both the debate and speech front. I didn’t think he won a debate until something like November, and since then has won 80% of them. And he’s started giving memorable speeches. You can tell he works on this stuff. I’m not terribly worried about the contrast between a Romney convention speech and an Obama convention speech.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:00 am
This just seems so bizarre to have such a shift for the “underdog” to be reversing his luck in CA, I would have to speculate that we are really beginning to see the base rally around the anti-McCain.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:00 am
“If the economy tanks, better it be under a Democrat than a Republican, so the Democrat gets the blame.”
True, but the Dems and media will spin it and claim they inherited it from Bush and the Republicans. Remember, nothing is ever the fault of the democrats, nothing.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I did not mean to let anyone speculate as to my bias, GO MITT!!!
February 4th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I think that’s a reasonable assessment. Though, I’d say that Romney gets the award for “most improved†on both the debate and speech front. I didn’t think he won a debate until something like November, and since then has won 80% of them. And he’s started giving memorable speeches. You can tell he works on this stuff. I’m not terribly worried about the contrast between a Romney convention speech and an Obama convention speech.
I agree with all of that except for the contrast between an Obama convention speech and a Romney convention speech. Obama’s in an entirely different league when he gives a good speech, and his convention speech will be the speech of his life.
It’s not that Romney’s a poor orator. It’s that Obama’s a fantastic orator. The contrast between good and amazing can be wider than the contrast between good and bad.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:03 am
” would have to speculate that we are really beginning to see the base rally around the anti-McCain.”
Let’s see how things look where Romney didn’t spend $2M. Also Romney was closer in CA to begin with. The field poll showed him only down four points on 1/25.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:04 am
MCCAIN 97
ROMNEY 92
HUCKABEE 29
PAUL 6
Ain’t that close?
No! You Rombots really need to stop with your pre-Super Tuesday delegate counts, okay? Just like you were boasting about your delegate lead after New Hampshire — the early contests are not about the delgates! They’re about momentum! Delegate counts after only the early states are meaningless. Check back in 48 hours with the new delegate count.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Irrelevant. No one thinks of Reagan in that way except for people like us.
I’m guessing you’re referring to conservatives’ image of Reagan as their champion on social issues, and not his legacy as a fighter of communism. In that case, you’re correct. Except for the activist bases of each party, Reagan is largely perceived as a warrior against communism, which is justified since his dealings with the Soviet Union were his greatest and most long-lasting achievements. All else fades as we get further from his presidency. Most relatively apolitical people (arguably the majority of the population, and the kind that need to be won over in order to succeed in a general election) don’t give a rat’s ass about the “Reagan coalition” and the sanctity of his legacy. They remember “tear down this wall!” and “morning in America”, as well as Iran Contra. They’re looking for someone to deliver performances like those first two and who will keep away from scandals like the latter. Barack Obama has perceived this, which is why his discussion of Reagan rings true to a large extent.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:04 am
True, but the Dems and media will spin it and claim they inherited it from Bush and the Republicans. Remember, nothing is ever the fault of the democrats, nothing.
Hm. Didn’t think of that. That could work, too, given how much the public detests Bush.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Here is the best Mitt ad http./mitt-tv.mittromney.com/?showid=729609
February 4th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I’m guessing you’re referring to conservatives’ image of Reagan as their champion on social issues, and not his legacy as a fighter of communism. In that case, you’re correct. Except for the activist bases of each party, Reagan is largely perceived as a warrior against communism, which is justified since his dealings with the Soviet Union were his greatest and most long-lasting achievements. All else fades as we get further from his presidency. Most relatively apolitical people (arguably the majority of the population, and the kind that need to be won over in order to succeed in a general election) don’t give a rat’s ass about the “Reagan coalition†and the sanctity of his legacy. They remember “tear down this wall!†and “morning in Americaâ€, as well as Iran Contra. They’re looking for someone to deliver performances like those first two and who will keep away from scandals like the latter. Barack Obama has perceived this, which is why his discussion of Reagan rings true to a large extent.
I meant that when Joe Schmo hears the name “Ronald Reagan,” he doesn’t think “Tireless party activist that worked against Communism for decades before finally becoming President!”
They think of his legacy as a conservative President that had a strong sense of patriotism and unity behind him. They think of the morning in America and the shining city on a hill. If Obama could successfully set himself up as the parallel on the left to that, then that’s all that would matter in him becoming a ‘Reagan of the left.’
February 4th, 2008 at 10:07 am
#77 McCain needs to basically wrap this up tomorrow, otherwise he will find himself fighting from state to state against the conservative movement. If he doesn’t slide by in a major way tomorrow, then he’ll be beated to death after Feb 5th.
McCain may “win” tomorrow, but I don’t think he’s going to put this thing away.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:07 am
So, yes, that’s largely correct.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:07 am
#77 McCain needs to basically wrap this up tomorrow, otherwise he will find himself fighting from state to state against the conservative movement. If he doesn’t slide by in a major way tomorrow, then he’ll be beated to death after Feb 5th.
I agree, but I think he will.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:08 am
TLG,
Romney suffers from an inability to understand that speeches have highs and lows, peaks and valleys. He doesn’t modulate his tone very much; he doesn’t slow down to let people a particularly moving passage, or speed up to incite them into a frenzy. I think this is more a result of the style of speech he gives. They’re very clinically done, and really terrific for their type. But, their type has distinct limits. I’d be interested to see what he’d do with the sort of peaks and valleys speeches Obama gives. Right now, Romney writes alot of his speeches; in a general, maybe he’ll let someone like Peggy Noonan take over; someone who understands the more traditional techniques of oratory.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:08 am
If the link doesn’t work go to mittromney.com mitt tv under web ads it is called momentum.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Romney suffers from an inability to understand that speeches have highs and lows, peaks and valleys. He doesn’t modulate his tone very much; he doesn’t slow down to let people a particularly moving passage, or speed up to incite them into a frenzy. I think this is more a result of the style of speech he gives. They’re very clinically done, and really terrific for their type. But, their type has distinct limits. I’d be interested to see what he’d do with the sort of peaks and valleys speeches Obama gives. Right now, Romney writes alot of his speeches; in a general, maybe he’ll let someone like Peggy Noonan take over; someone who understands the more traditional techniques of oratory.
I agree. I have nothing to add.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:15 am
“Romney suffers from an inability to understand that speeches have highs and lows, peaks and valleys. He doesn’t modulate his tone very much; he doesn’t slow down to let people a particularly moving passage, or speed up to incite them into a frenzy. I think this is more a result of the style of speech he gives”
That reminds me of the “Freedom Requires Religion” speech. He was talking too quickly at first. Eventually he slowed down.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:16 am
TLG,
Perhaps I’m getting too old, and maybe there really is a generational divide when it comes to Reagan. While there was just as much (if not more) leftist opposition to his aggressive foreign policy as there is with Bush, a large part of his support among independents and Democrats, at the time, came from the fact that after years of Ford and Carter, as well as the debacle in Vietnam, a lot of Americans were getting sick of being kicked around in the rest of the world. People around here forget, but Reagan began his race in 1980 trailing Carter by quite a bit, and only had success after he was able to overcome his previous image as an arch-conservative styled after Goldwater (which happened largely on account of his genial demeanor on the campaign trail and in debates.) People wanted, and got, someone with a little more backbone than Carter. I’m afraid those who weren’t politically aware during the Reagan years (not you, but a large part of the blogosphere, to be sure), have a distorted view of what the man stood for and accomplished.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Back to topic: Mitt was ahead in the ARG California poll released yesterday by 33 to 32. Today’s Zogby shows Mitt ahead in the state 40 to 32. If McCain’s ceiling in the state is in the low 30’s, it could be a rout. A major victory in California would change the campaign dynamic going forward in a major way.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Perhaps I’m getting too old, and maybe there really is a generational divide when it comes to Reagan. While there was just as much (if not more) leftist opposition to his aggressive foreign policy as there is with Bush, a large part of his support among independents and Democrats, at the time, came from the fact that after years of Ford and Carter, as well as the debacle in Vietnam, a lot of Americans were getting sick of being kicked around in the rest of the world. People around here forget, but Reagan began his race in 1980 trailing Carter by quite a bit, and only had success after he was able to overcome his previous image as an arch-conservative styled after Goldwater (which happened largely on account of his genial demeanor on the campaign trail and in debates.) People wanted, and got, someone with a little more backbone than Carter. I’m afraid those who weren’t politically aware during the Reagan years (not you, but a large part of the blogosphere, to be sure), have a distorted view of what the man stood for and accomplished.
I wasn’t politically aware during the Reagan years because I was not alive when Ronald Reagan was President.
The fact that a genial manner can overcome an otherwise very openly ideological worldview should make us worry about Barack Obama.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:22 am
ThatLib
ThatLibertarianGuy Says:
February 4th, 2008 at 9:24 am
while “political analysts†will downplay the Mitt win and talk up the delegates.
Well, this is a race for delegates, after all.
Now you say in #77:
No! You Rombots really need to stop with your pre-Super Tuesday delegate counts, okay? Just like you were boasting about your delegate lead after New Hampshire — the early contests are not about the delgates! They’re about momentum! Delegate counts after only the early states are meaningless. Check back in 48 hours with the new delegate count.
Which is it? Do Delegates count or not?
February 4th, 2008 at 10:31 am
I wasn’t politically aware during the Reagan years because I was not alive when Ronald Reagan was President.
I know that, but it just seems so strange.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Obama raised $32 million in January alone.
He will crush the Republican nominee.
Romney will be 68 next time het gets a chance to run.
The presidency as much as would like to to be about competence is about symbols.
Bush won because he symbolized bringing honor back to the White House after the Clinton debacle.
Romney has not figured out what he symbolizes and the “vision think” is woefully lacking.
What is Romney’s vision for the next 4 years?
He could be talking about a vision of a better world but he is ceding that to Obama’s oratory.
Romney could be Clinton but all three will be beaten by Obama if they don’t start combining vision with policies.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Big S, I wasn’t that politically aware back in the Carter years and the Reagan years, but I think you’re right. The spirit of the nation had gone from capitulation in Vietnam, a scandalous Nixon presidency, horrible inflation, before we wound up with Carter as something “new” that would restore faith in government. Yet other than that, Carter and the Democrats only offered capitulation and “convergence” with the Soviets. The spirit of the nation was one of defeat.
More than anything else, Reagan offered hope and optimism, strength and security — that was most of what I remember of him. Reagan led effectively thanks in large part to his communication skills.
As a kid in junior high and high school at the time, I paid little attention to politics. But I don’t remember the spirit of the Reagan years being about libertarian idealism that much. It was more about the idea that America did not simply have to accept high inflation, high unemployment, expansive communism, and ever higher taxes. It was a repudiation of Carter’s summary of the ’70s.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:56 am
[...] is for sure, although McCain seems to want to give the proverbial finger to Romney, the voters in California and Georgia seem to be flipping it [...]
February 4th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Normally I wouldn’t give Zogby a second nod, but he called FL exactly. I think this is big symbolically (I don’t think the delegate counts from CA will be that different) for Romney- if he wins CA and wins the West, does well in the south (1’st-2′nd in GA, TN, and maybe MO), wins small northern states (Alaska, Montana, North Dakota), and wins Mass. and maybe Delaware, he’s very much still in this. I think a CA/GA win will be especially powerful for Romney (again, symbolically- not necessarily delegate wise). Romney should fight hard in Arizona- another huge symbolic victory if somehow it happened. Even if it was close it will be good for Romney. I see a lot of opportunity here, but if he can’t pull out some solid wins in the aforementioned states, he really is probably done for. I’m hoping!
February 4th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Which is it? Do Delegates count or not? - The Real Truth
What on Earth did I say that was contradictory? It’s a race for delegates on Super Tuesday; the early states are not about securing delegates, but momentum. From here on out, the race for momentum is over. It’s all about scrambling together delegates.