The Candidates Matter

Nate Silver writes about Herman Cain:

The other litmus test is Iowa, where there have been few credible polls conducted in recent weeks. But the former leader in Iowa, Mrs. Bachmann, has since seen her numbers slump badly in national polls. Tim Pawlenty has dropped out of the running, meanwhile, while Mr. Romney has yet to fully commit to the state for fear of raising expectations.

Mr. Cain’s winning Iowa would be a potential game-changer. Iowa has not historically been as important for Republican voters as for Democrats, but a win there would give rank-and-file Republicans — many of whom like Mr. Cain but are not convinced that he is viable — confidence that a vote for him would not be wasted.

I don't believe that for a second. Herman Cain has no chance of winning the nomination. He is a vanity candidate with no organization, skill or seriousness. He would have no chance of winning a general election. These "predictive" models have value when judging credible candidates. But Herman Cain is not a serious candidate. Only Rick Perry has a theoretical chance of beating Romney. I say theoretical because Perry is a terrible candidate. Here is a predictive model I believe in - terrible candidates will campaign terribly. Romney knows what he is doing. Perry doesn't. Perry's hope is that the Media (especially Fox) decides to go after Romney. Fox has settled on Romney I think and the rest of the Media seems unlikely to completely turn on him. There will be no NBC October 2008 type debate to try and topple Romney. Absent some Romney scandal emerging, I think the GOP race is over. More . . .

Contrast the GOP race this year with the Democratic race in 2008 (or even the 2008 GOP race). In the 2008 Dem race, two heavyweight pols went at it through June because both were terrific pols. Even the GOP race featured 2 competent politicians (McCain and Romney.) There is one competent national politician in the GOP race this year - that pol is Romney.

It's over.

< DEA Global Holy Warriors Take On Iran | Sunday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    So I guess that means that you do not (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 10:19:02 AM EST
    think that Anita Perry's claim that the GOP is persecuting Rick because he is a Christian is a campaign winner. ;o)

    Heh (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 10:20:48 AM EST
    Now about that fleece (puzzling): (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 10:30:20 AM EST
    I tink it would be fair to say (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 10:43:57 AM EST
    that Perry has a close relationship with the word "fleece." Not the biblical reference and not the noun but rather the verb.

    Please don't get me  started on the politicians who talk about how religious they are as they lie, steal and cheat their way through life.  


    Gideon, (none / 0) (#12)
    by the capstan on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 11:20:40 AM EST
    one of the judges (rulers) of early Israel, put 3 tests before Jehovah, two of which concerned whether a fleece lying on the ground all night was wet or dry in the morning.  So the fleece Mrs. Perry meant referred to her husband being sure whether God wants him to run for president.

    That's my reading of it, anyway.  But I agree, Perry has 'fleeced' Texas and is now aiming for all of us.


    Yes the link oculus provided (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 12:02:20 PM EST
    explains the biblical story of Gideon and the fact that Mrs. Perry was affirming that good old Rick was sure God wants him to run for president.

    Thanks for fleshing out my comment for those who do not use the links to get the entire picture.

    BTW, I think it is time to rewrite the Constitution to include the new qualification for president of being chosen by God. While we are at it we should also change the bible from "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth".  to Blessed are the rich and powerful: for they will inherit the what is left of the earth. Or maybe, Go forth and crush the poor and the sick in my name.  


    and I am accused of never (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 03:39:04 PM EST
    reading the links?  The outrage.

    Sorry about that (none / 0) (#75)
    by the capstan on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 07:32:08 PM EST
    unread link!  It is amazing how much a little double vision interferes with finding isolated elements on an internet site.  If it is connnected to the main body, I usually see it.

    Hey, I was very impressed on how much (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 07:42:00 AM EST
    you knew about the subject without reading the link. Neither oculus or I went into what the biblical reference meant or how it was code for Perry being "chosen" by God. So it was good information.  

    I'm normally embarrassed after hitting "post" to see the errors I did not catch during ""preveiw". Poor typing, sloppy spelling compounded by a sticking keyboard. At times, I look downright illiterate. You OTOH just looked like a very knowledgeable person who didn't read the link. I'll trade. ;o)    


    to MO Blue (none / 0) (#88)
    by the capstan on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 10:03:55 AM EST
    Gee, t'anks!

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 10:40:30 AM EST
    apparently the Obama campaign thinks the same thing.

    This post shows why I'm not a fan of Nate Silver. You can't put the human variables in them like Cain's race or at least this post from Silver does not seem to account for that.

    Everybody talks about how Romney is going to have problems in the south with voters because of his religion and I'm sure that will be a factor but no one discusses Cain's race as being a problem with voters in the south? That I do not understand. Anyway, Romney at least has a way to get around that because he can win the primary in places like the west and the northeast. To me, Cain has no regional or really any other constituency within the GOP. This is just his 15 minutes of fame like Bachmann and some of the others had

    I'm going with Charles Pierce: (none / 0) (#53)
    by Anne on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 03:11:21 PM EST
    From Pierce's blog at Esquire:

    And Herman Cain is the first successful post-Palin politician.

    He is manifestly smarter than she is, and he is infinitely more disciplined as a candidate. Say what you will about the merits of his 9-9-9 Plan, and all there is to say about it is that it is suicidally harebrained, Cain stuck to it like a bulldog on Tuesday night. (If Rick Perry had that kind of stubborn streak, he'd be up by 20 points by now.) Except in her ungainly diving at every nickel that rolls across her path, Sarah Palin never has demonstrated that kind of monomaniacal tenacity that Cain manages without breaking a sweat. At the same time, he is running a "campaign" not entirely dissimilar to the various grifting scams that Palin has visited upon the nation. Except, of course, that Cain actually has declared a candidacy and is out there actually appearing to run for president. He is out there selling himself as a political celebrity no less than Palin does. She created the mold. Herman Cain is what it produced.

    There is about his current surge an ineffable sense that it has surprised Cain as much as it has surprised the nation. (Did you know that he ran for president for about 20 minutes back in 2000? I didn't, until today.) He was content to sell his book and audition for the inevitable Talking Straight with Herman Cain, up next on the Fox News Channel. Now, he's got a lead in the polls. Actual economists are looking at his signature economic plan and holding their heads while reaching for the bourbon. He's an "upper tier" candidate in a field that otherwise seems to have nothing but Mitt Romney and a root cellar. Yet, he still seems more interested in selling his book, and appearing on television. His political talents remain quite limited relative to his fame. The buzz around him is rising, and he is jealously guarding a suddenly popular political brand. Is he a candidate yet, in the fullest sense of the word? What? You think that matters?

    I think Cain will be banished to the root cellar in due course, maybe as soon as his 9-9-9 plan is revealed to be the latest plan to transfer wealth upward; it remains to be seen, however, whether anyone in the media will dissect it to the degree that it needs to be, or whether they will stick to glossing over the finer points that really define the plan.

    Yeah, right...of course the media's going to do its job.


    Well, (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 03:21:22 PM EST
    Cain has been a talk show host here in GA for a while so does know how to fleece the flock so to speak.

    It is another economic plan to stick it to the middle class and no less than the WSJ went after him for his plan. So they're already working on putting him in the root cellar. Expect him to rise and fall as quick as the rest of them.


    It's already been disected here (none / 0) (#63)
    by nycstray on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 04:30:38 PM EST
    local news has taken a look at what 999 would do to us :)

    I haven't seen any evidence that Cain is (none / 0) (#58)
    by tigercourse on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 04:00:23 PM EST
    smarter then Palin. He seems to be just about the same level of dolt as Bachman and Perry.

    Not a Cain fan at all, but (none / 0) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 03:30:28 PM EST
    do you really think either Palin or Perry could have brought a rapidly sinking retail business back to life the way Cain did with Godfather's?

    He's no policy genius for sure, but his basic smarts are more than Palin and Perry put together (not that that adds up to much, but still...)


    Trending (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 01:10:34 PM EST
    about Cain right now is his Enron problem. He was on the Board of Directors for a company called Aquila and handed out $30 million bonuses to the executives while the company was going under and all the employees lost their pensions. He was also pressing the same employees to put all their money in the stock. There was a lawsuit naming Cain and others from the board of directors.

    Oooh! (none / 0) (#99)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 03:40:02 PM EST
    Hadn't heard about that.  Thanks for the info. (There goes the "job creator"...)

    Canidates matter on the Dem side as well (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 02:30:59 PM EST
    The 15 Democrats who joined all but two Republicans in voting for a bill colloquially known as the "Let Women Die" Act, which would among other things make it illegal for hospitals to perform a life-saving abortion on a woman, are as follows:

    Jason Altmire (PA), Sanford Bishop (GA), Dan Boren (OK), Jerry Costello (IL), Mark Critz (PA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Joe Donnelly (IN), Tim Holden (PA), Dan Lipinski (IL), Jim Matheson (UT), Mike McIntyre (NC), Collin Peterson (MN), Nick Rahall (WV), Mike Ross (AR), Heath Shuler (NC)

    CREDO, the progressive organization, has had enough. They noticed that the DCCC, the campaign arm for Democrats in the House, which solicited fundraising right after the vote on the Let Women Die Act saying that Democrats had to be elected to "protect the health of women," listed three of the Democrats above as "Frontline" candidates, meaning they will be at the front of the line for that cash (the three are Matheson, Mark Critz and Mike McIntyre).

    It is shameful that the DCCC is using these horrible attacks on women's lives as a chance to fill their own coffers with the money of supporters who are genuinely angry about the war extremists in Congress are waging against women.

    Not only is it hypocritical for the DCCC not to mention that the money raised for their women's health fund will be going directly to three anti-choice candidates, but it is simply wrong that they are funding candidates who are so anti-choice that they voted for a bill that would let women die in a hospital without any intervention.

    The DCCC's two-faced messaging must stop. If they care about protecting women's health, then they need to stop funding extreme anti-choice candidates -- and if they want to fund those anti-woman candidates, then they need to stop running fundraising campaigns that use attacks on women's health to solicit contributions from pro-choice activists.


    herman cain and michelle bachmann (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by cpinva on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:18:37 PM EST
    are nothing more than republican show candidates, with no hope of winning anything, much less the  nomination. they are allowed to exist solely to "prove" that the present republican party really isn't as racist & misogynistic as they actually are.

    they'll use this as a means of grifting in the future. heck, cain's already started, shilling his new "book" while he "campaigns". no doubt rep. bachmann is looking to make her financial mark as well.

    Absolutely true (none / 0) (#83)
    by NY Progressive on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:27:21 PM EST
    There's no way Republicans will vote for a woman or a black man at the top of the ticket.

    But a white woman as VP with Romney, a good Christian woman. Now that ticket would have a chance.


    "Interesting Times" in store for us (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by NYShooter on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 09:01:22 PM EST
    Both Parties are struggling to gain enough average American voters to win a national election

    And yet, whichever wins

    They will represent only 1%

    While, at the same time:

    NYT, Sat, Oct. 15, 2011
    Buoyed by Wall St. Protests, Rallies Sweep the Globe

    "Hundreds and in some cases thousands of people expressed discontent with the economy in Asia, the Americas and Europe. "

    Cognitive dissonance ?

    My theory re Pres. Obama (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 10:27:27 AM EST
    sending 100 U.S. military personnel to Africa to "advise" is that he is countering Romney's recent militaristic foreign policy speech.  

    Can't have cuts to Defense (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 12:32:48 PM EST
    and still support the troops and Obama's actions against terrorist so saith Leon Panetta.

    Leon Panetta has said time and time again since the inking of the debt limit deal that defense cuts at the level of what would be triggered by a Super Committee failure would be disastrous. He did so again at a Congressional hearing today. And we finally got a sense of what that "disaster" would specifically look like, according to Ben Armbruster's account. Turns out it would mean that US military personnel might not be in every country on Earth. Disaster!

    During a House Armed Services Committee Hearing today, Ranking Member Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) asked Panetta for specifics as to how more spending cuts "increases the risk" to the military and U.S. national security. "What risk specifically?" Smith repeatedly asked. But Panetta didn't really have much. After meandering through a series of fillers -- "we're going through the process," "we're still shaping" a strategy -- Panetta finally admitted that "no decisions have been made" on what they need and eventually said the greatest risk would be to have to reduce the U.S. military presence in -- Latin America and Africa: link

    It is unAmerican not to be willing to sacrifice needed domestic and safety net programs so that we can pursue Never Ending War.  Starve, sucker, or the terrorist will get you. {/snark}


    by "disasterous", mr. panetta means (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by cpinva on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:11:45 PM EST
    that the armed forces wouldn't be able to afford spending on every cockamamie weapon system that comes along. this is not to be confused with not being able to do their actual job, which is to protect the country. that they can do quite nicely, for a lot less money.

    No, I don't think so (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 11:45:37 AM EST
    Romney has made so many on the record gaffes backing the Bush administration on Iraq and their past Afghanistan strategy that was all about letting bin Laden go free, I don't think Obama is pulling anything out to wail on him with in the area of militaristic foreign policy.  He won't even need to break a sweat to DESTROY Romney with Romney's own history.

    What do I really think?  I think Obama has become as impressed with his Commander in Chief record as I am and now he's going to expand and kinetically expound on that.


    My take on "deploying (none / 0) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 01:40:02 PM EST
    armed advisors" to Uganda is that President Museveni needs to be propped up against the Joseph Kony. Museveni is a favorite on several levels: He is a a favorite because of his adherence to IMF structural adjustment (i.e, privatizing state enterprises, cutting spending) and he, as a born-again Christian,  is a favorite of Senator James Inhoff (R. OK)--and the  C Street "Family", their key man in Africa.  

    The Lord's Resistance Army, which is down to about 100, are vicious,  ruthless and terrorizing rebels in the north.  But, then, Museveni is no angel what with his brutal invasion of the Congo, his shadowy role in Rwanda and authoritative and militaristic  rule at home.  Museveni was re-elected earlier this year with 68 per cent of the vote, a result disputed by the Euro Union.  


    Yes, you are certainly right (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by KeysDan on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 05:53:23 PM EST
    about the invasions and exploitation of the Congo, and, King Leopold was among the worst of the royal colonists--probably a role model for Idi Amin.   My view of the present situation is that Museveni's invasion of the Congo was a bloody one, with deaths estimated in the millions. Museveni is not Joseph Kong, but not an altar boy either--himself being accused of war crimes.  

    Moreover, if Museveni can field an army to invade a neighboring country, it seems curious that, after all these years, including with the assistance of Bush advisors and US foreign aid, he can't control the rebel, Joseph Kong and his child guerillas.  Now armed Americans are being deployed to capture this vicious but ragtag group.

    Senator Inhoff (on the foreign relations committee) is a proponent of the LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act (the legal basis cited for military "advising") and has a special evangelical relationship with Museveni---an advocate of the  C Street "The Family"  efforts for the death penalty for gays.  Museveni has infamously claimed that European homosexuals are recruiting in Africa.  If this is not enough reason to prop up our man in Africa, the recent discovery of large oil reserves in Uganda and access to coltan for use in cell phones makes King Leopold look like a piker.


    Funny how one word keeps popping (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 06:03:42 PM EST
    up in the countries where the U.S. has decided military action is absolutely necessary.

    Do you think these Uganda (none / 0) (#74)
    by KeysDan on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 07:08:33 PM EST
    armed advisor costs will need to be offset?   Maybe, cuts in disaster relief would do.  I would say cuts in food stamps or old age disability would be contenders, but that's old hat.

    I think there is still a few bucks left in (none / 0) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 07:41:13 PM EST
    the budget for WIC and LIHEAP that they can zero out. Expansion of Medicaid and those subsidies included in the health insurance legislation - hmmm - if we eliminated those think of all the freedom bombs and armed advisors we could off set with those funds. All the unexplored territories for the U.S. to protect through their kinetic military action. Think global.

    A huge idea. (none / 0) (#77)
    by KeysDan on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 07:45:45 PM EST
    Let's do it.

    Our main (none / 0) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 07:48:18 PM EST

    actually, (none / 0) (#80)
    by cpinva on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:13:56 PM EST
    king leopold would make a great modern-day republican, if you think about it.

    Mitt Romney winning the GOP nomination (none / 0) (#5)
    by NY Progressive on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 10:39:25 AM EST
    would be great for us. Personally, I think Obama will manage to pull off another Hope & Change election, albeit with fewer dedicated followers. However, the non-presidential issues and candidates are more at risk if right wing Christians turn out in a big way next fall. Given Mitt's religion, it may help to damper some of the electoral enthusiasm on the non-Mormon far right. That would be a good thing for our Democrats.

    Economy - Dem enthusiasm (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 11:12:55 AM EST
    Latest Washington Post-Bloomberg News poll: Would the economy be better or worse if a Republican were elected president in 2012? Source

    ...the division, even among Democrats, about whether the economy would be worse if Obama were to lose. Almost half (48 percent) said it would be worse, but the number who believed it would be the same was nearly equal (44 percent). The split among Republicans was far sharper: 63 percent thought the economy would be better if a Republican were elected president, while 29 percent believed it would be the same.


    ...independents were markedly more skeptical about whether a different president would make a difference for the economy. A clear majority (55 percent) said the economy would be the same with a Republican president. The rest were closely split, with 17 percent thinking a Democratic president would be better for the economy and 19 percent saying a Republican would be preferable.
    Now, according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, independents favor former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney over Obama by 13 points, 54 percent to 41 percent.

    I don't need nor want (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by the capstan on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 11:22:38 AM EST
    another empty 'hope and change' election.

    It's probably (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 10:44:41 AM EST
    a wash when you look at the big picture. The enthusiasm or lack thereof for Mitt on the right probably equals the same for Obama on the left.

    And a candidate who would get the evangelicals enthused would probably lose the general election ALA Perry (or maybe it's not even Perry anymore)and get Obama more votes.

    Romney just doesn't come off as creepy and scary like the rest of the GOP does.


    Romney doesn't seem (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by sj on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 01:57:59 PM EST
    all that scary to me until I remember the dog.  That casually pitiless attitude is scarier than it seems at first blush.

    I see no candidate on the horizon, in (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 11:33:45 AM EST
    either party who would be "great for us," and I do not consider a bad Republican field to be a good thing for Dems as long as the Democratic candidate - now or ever - is offering Republican policy in a saner package.

    Seriously, your recent comments have made me wonder if ABG has relocated to NY.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 11:45:25 AM EST
    he's the newest "assignee" to this blog. He's trying to succeed where others have failed. Maybe there's a special Obama medal in it for him.

    See what I mean (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 02:41:38 PM EST
    An active campaign (none / 0) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 12:07:54 PM EST
    to make ABG look better better by comparison, maybe. IOW, it is a lesser of two evils kind of thing. ;o)

    I'm not ABG, not even a guy (none / 0) (#82)
    by NY Progressive on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 08:20:01 PM EST
    But Anne, why the heck aren't you running. You could do a better job than any of these people, including BO. If not you, than why not someone LIKE you. This is America, anything can happen if enough of us agree to make is so. Let's find someone to run on the Republican ticket who would be a better Democrat than our current stealth Republican president.

    I think Romeny beats Obama IF (none / 0) (#22)
    by BobTinKY on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 12:10:43 PM EST
    Romney can get nominated. Still a huge IF in my view.

    The economy does & will continue to suck.  Re-election with officially 9% unemployed, more realistically 16%, unprecedented. Add to that Obama's three years of thumbing his nose at his base and Romney will win.


    Nah, Romney getting the nom is actually (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by brodie on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 12:46:36 PM EST
    a very small if at this point.  Agree here with btd -- only Perry is politically positioned to take away what has again become Willard's nom to lose.  And because Perry is so politically and intellectually inept, as is much of his advisory staff apparently, a Perry comeback looks like quite a long shot.

    I definitely see the trend continuing of the very far right and wacko Tea Party elements being discredited as their favorite candidates are exposed as the unelectable nitwits that they are.  The next and probably final RW moron to be exposed will be Cain.  After he's brought back to his proper second or third tier standing in the polls -- probably in the next month -- the far right will have no one to rally around.

    And when even Fox News Channel is being friendly to the non-conservative Mittster you know most of the GOP primary voters are about to follow suit and once again reward the loyal soldier who finished second last time, despite his many flaws.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#35)
    by christinep on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 01:13:28 PM EST
    there is something to the latest "comparison" about elections as well. That is: Romney might equal 1996's Dole...with Dole being the stronger by comparison!?!

    Romney should be much stronger (none / 0) (#37)
    by brodie on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 01:28:39 PM EST
    and better positioned than Mean Bob Dole, for reasons I note succinctly in a delightful post below.

    And the other side of that coin is that Bill Clinton was better positioned for obvious reasons to defend his title as compared to O.   BC was also an overall smarter pol and better campaigner than O; I see the Mittster as being on a par with O in the latter categories and so the general campaign between those two should be interesting.


    See my comment below and (none / 0) (#38)
    by christinep on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 01:33:00 PM EST
    add to that different take the matter of positioning on foreign policy and related security. The famous/infamous foreign policy matter has often been ceded by Democrats to the Repubs in other recent elections. That dynamic with Independents could be fascinating.

    i agree (none / 0) (#40)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 01:56:04 PM EST
    & i think Romney will get the nomination

    i don't like it, but unless something changes fast, what i see in November 2012 is a blowout of Bush-Dukakis proportions & in January 2013 the inauguration of President Mitt Romney


    I don't think (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 02:34:05 PM EST
    it's going to be a blowout like that because conservatism is in decline right now. More like 1976 and Obama being Gerald Ford IMO. The GOP has not had a blowout election since the end of the Cold War.

    the presidential election (none / 0) (#48)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 02:45:23 PM EST
    will be won in 50 state-level elections

    Obama is on track to lose most of them, as the Democratic candidate usually does

    but Obama's losses are likely to include some big crucial swing states, some (more or less) traditionally blue states, & the traditionally red states he managed to win in 2008

    i see an electoral blowout, but time & politics will tell

    not looking forward to November 2012 or January 2013, & that's for sure


    And won in the Electoral College (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Towanda on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 11:41:35 PM EST
    actually.  So Romney is on track to win, owing to

    (a) the Republican redistricting in so many states (since the Dems blew 2010, when anyone with any sense knew that was going to set up the next decade more than the 2008 election), and

    (b) the move in many states to allow splitting the Electors (rather than the usual all going to the winner of a state even if by an nth of a percent).

    Just more evidence, to my mind, that the plan in picking the old guy and the crazy woman for the Republican ticket last time was the plan, letting the Dems get stuck with the disastrous economy, while winning the governors and legislators in selected states to do the redistricting and the split-Electors bills to win in 2012 . . . 2016 . . . 2020. . . .


    I think Romney would beat Obama (none / 0) (#93)
    by desmoinesdem on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 02:53:54 PM EST
    without too much trouble. It's the economy, stupid. (and Romney doesn't seem too scary)

    No Brainer (none / 0) (#9)
    by SOS on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 10:51:31 AM EST
    Goldman Sachs - Top Recipients, 2011-2012
    Romney, Mitt (R) $290,750
    Obama, Barack (D) $44,750

    Cain's weirdo Tax policy will doom him (none / 0) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 11:06:48 AM EST
    amongst the GOP pretty quick. Once the "Cain will raise taxes" bandwagon starts rolling it will run him down.

    Gulp (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 11:48:53 AM EST
    Perry seems to have more money to spend in Iowa than Romney, so there's that. There's also the fact that the Republican base doesn't want to vote for Romney. They've told us so a dozen different times.

    I think if Newt were running a real campaign he would be the Kerry of 2012.

    I've heard that (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 11:57:14 AM EST
    Romney isn't really going to compete in IA and is focusing on NH.

    Frankly, if Perry keeps up the way he has been, he's not going to last much past IA. Perry is a classic example of what's wrong with the GOP. They have lived in the talk radio/Fox news/red state bubble for so long they simply can't understand why they're having problems.


    Even if he wins NH (none / 0) (#24)
    by BobTinKY on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 12:13:25 PM EST
    he goes next to South Carolina?  He will get blown out there.  And a NH win is far from a sure thing as NH conservatives are as conservatives as anyone in the US.

    Romney is more or less a sure thing in (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by tigercourse on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 12:39:51 PM EST
    Hew Hampshire. New Hampshire Republicans might be conservative, but culturally they will pick someone like Romney over any one else in the field. And Florida (where Romney polls decently) might come before South Carolina.

    I've (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 01:03:00 PM EST
    always said that Romney is going to have to win outside of the south but when I was in SC a few weeks ago the newspaper was reporting that Romney and Perry were tied with Primary voters in the state and that was before Perry's implosion.

    What you have to realize that in places like SC the voters are going to be told that Perry et al. are unelectable which they pretty much are and the sheep....er, GOP primary voters will come out and vote for Romney.


    According to Karl Rove on Fox (none / 0) (#97)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 03:35:04 PM EST
    the other night, NH voters couldn't care less about Iowa, but SC voters, oddly, are influenced by NH.  No idea how true that is, but Rove does know his stuff about the GOP voters in various states.  Bottom line, Romney may well win SC, especially if he wins NH resoundingly.  And if he loses SC, it won't be by much.

    I'll be curious to see whether Rove is right or not this election.


    Perry winning Iowa is a game changer (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 12:26:39 PM EST
    Romney winning Iowa ends the game.

    Forget Newt -- even the crusty conservatives (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by brodie on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 12:56:45 PM EST
    in the GOP don't like him and know he's about the most unelectable candidate the party could nominate.  Well known as one of the most unlikable pols to have come along since they invented political polling.  Kerry by contrast was just seen as an unexciting career pol -- but the obvious clear alternative for his electability quotient.

    i know (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 01:07:59 PM EST
    Newt is a has been that very few people outside of GA like and there's not that many people even inside of GA that really care what he has to say about anything.

    My bet is on Bachmann to eke (none / 0) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 03:32:09 PM EST
    out the win in Iowa.  She's a huge favorite there, has a widespread and fervent organization that knows how the caucus system works.  Perry doesn't have either.

    Romney's one major problem (none / 0) (#20)
    by BobTinKY on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 12:07:43 PM EST
    Republican primary voters don't like him.

    The man spent $50 plus million for one delegate last time around.

    Might come down to (none / 0) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 12:15:52 PM EST
    who do the dislike more, Obama or Mittens?

    OTOH, the Republican establishment might just let their voters chose crazy in 2012, concentrate on winning the Senate and bring out what they consider their big guns in 2016. A Republican majority in both houses of Congress and Obama as president is IMO a sure fire win for them.


    With 9% unemployment and a dispirited (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by brodie on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 01:08:28 PM EST
    Dem base you can be sure the GOP bigwigs see an obvious opening to run the table -- not just the senate but the WH while holding on to the House.  They certainly aren't conceding the presidential race the way they seemed to in 1996 with the nom of cranky Bob Dole:  Romney is far better able to appeal to more voters with his slicker and sunnier persona and the dire economic backdrop will put considerable wind at the back of his campaign.

    Once Cain is exposed as the unserious simpleton that he is the GOP will have largely settled the battle between the two factions in their party and then the focus will become rallying around the person who can defeat Obama.


    Romney's personality outshines Dole's (none / 0) (#36)
    by christinep on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 01:21:28 PM EST
    ...obviously. But, Dole had respect (of a sort) in view of his service to country, etc. The changing persona of Romney is inescapable; but, the real issue has always been the LDS matter. While I believe that "evangelicals" who vote will pull the lever for a Romney, the interesting issue is whether those same evangelicals that influenced the race in Ohio, Michigan, and maybe even Colorado in 2004 will vote...or stay home with the flu or another activity because the big caravans organized by their churches in past elections (where they may have contributed to a 2% or so differential)might not be there. Who knows?

    What happened (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 02:23:30 PM EST
    in 2004 was kind of an anomaly. Evangelicals put all their political capital into George W. Bush and they lost. I don't see them being a political force anymore. Judging from my unscientific stuff from Facebook, they still love George W. Bush but keep switching their alliances between candidates. Last month they were all for Perry and now they're all for Cain. Like you I can see them coming out and voting for Romney but not like they did for Bush but what I'm wondering is how hard a time Obama would have in some western states because Mormons are going to come out and vote in mass for Romney I'm willing to bet.

    The Mormons who would come out (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MKS on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 02:47:03 PM EST
    in droves are already voting GOP.

    Nevada would be the best test case. Obama's GOTV is pretty strong though.


    Obama (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 02:55:07 PM EST
    apparently isn't going to have much of a GOTV operation with a demoralized base.

    I doubt that Obama would carry Nevada against Romney. Unless the GOP nominates a Sharon Angle tea party candidate that state is probably lost for him with the UE numbers in that state along with his own statements about the state.


    One thing (none / 0) (#59)
    by christinep on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 04:05:50 PM EST
    Most of those forecasters who deal with the numbers machinations leading to victory in the electoral college have credited the Dems with a starting number of about 230 to 240 out of the necessary 270.  Even with losing the majority of states, the Dems start significantly ahead because of the delegate number in the states that Dems have won in the past 5 elections.

    Given countervailing factors--i.e., some hurt, some help, probably a wash--and, assuming a reasonably steady course with some forward motion (as defined, in part, by advertising $$ and organization), Dems need 35 to 40 votes.  Right now, that seems to come down to the requisite combo from among: Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, Virginia, & Florida <as I recall.>  If the Dems win Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina, for example, it really does look like an electoral victory.

    In that vein, consider: Ohio has gains given the auto bailout as it effects related industries (many in Ohio) & Gov. Kasich, the Repub who attmepted to imitate Wisc's Walker, is nosediving in Ohio's polls together with those Repub policies...& Obama is practically residing there; then, the Dem convention will be in North Carolina...a situation that can improve a party's chances because of the influx for the economy & the news that generates; and, also, the situation in Colorado, while precarious for the WH, still has the same pattern that underlay 2008...the Hispanic votes are crucial. Cause for Democratic optimism in the hard numbers.  (OTOH, Romney's family has the known close ties with Michigan. That could prove interesting.)


    The starting (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 06:32:08 PM EST
    EV count is why I think it will probably be close. I think Florida is out of reach for Obama IIRC. I don't think having the convention in NC will help Obama much. Since he only carried the state with 1/2% in 2008 it's probably gone along with VA.

    SurveyUSA (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 05:07:09 PM EST
    says Michigan not so close:

    Obama up 50-39 over Romney


    that's an (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 06:41:05 PM EST
    interesting poll when you look at all the specifics. The CW that the tea party won't vote for Romney is not supported in that poll as he get 77% while Bachman gets the most at 84%. Also Obama loses women voters against Romney but his numbers shoot up about 5 points when you put him against Perry, Cain, et al.

    And in national polls (RCP average) (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:22:11 PM EST
    Obama beats Romney by 0.7.  That's a tie and goes to the House of Representatives, where Romney wins.

    See - polls are fun!


    That's damning with faint praise. (none / 0) (#60)
    by caseyOR on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 04:16:45 PM EST
    Both Romney and Dole are so devoid of personality that I hesitate to rank one above the other.

    I will grant you that Mitt is not as codger-like in 2011 as Bob was in the 1996 race. On the authentic meter, though, Dole wins hands down. He was clearly just being himself. Mitt, on the other hand, is an automaton who appears to be regularly reprogrammed to fit whatever current race he is in or group he is facing.

    Mitt does have better hair than Dole; Rick Perry has better hair than either Dole of Romney.


    Speaking of damning w/faint praise: (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 06:03:59 PM EST
    it will interesting to watch Obama and Romney debate:  mandates/trade pacts/immigration etc.  

    Debate will consist of (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 06:09:48 PM EST
    "I can out Republican you."

    "No, my agenda is more Republican that yours."



    The evangelicals will (none / 0) (#98)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 03:37:49 PM EST
    come out in droves if they think there's a chance to defeat the anti-Christ.

    Herman Cain's idea (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 12:12:29 PM EST
    for the construction of a "Wall of  China" along the US/Mexico border was inspired by a recent trip of his to China.  The concept of this ancient barrier was to be cunningly modified by trenching, on our side of the wall, a moat filled with alligators.

    Mr. Cain's immigration plan gave pause to his otherwise stellar candidacy and  made me think he  was really out of another century-- a medieval man.   However, I had to re-think that notion when I learned that he is a "thoroughly modern millie", in that his fence would be topped off with electrified barbed wire.

    Fox loves Romney and Cain. (none / 0) (#41)
    by lilburro on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 02:03:25 PM EST
    I have not had the uh, "opportunity" to watch as much Fox recently, having moved out of the house I shared with a Republican roommate.  But unless something has changed Fox absolutely loves Cain.  Some of his popularity must be coming from that alone.  People also like that he owned a small business.  They don't seem to care much for Perry at all over there and are treating Romney with kid gloves.  The fact that they are choosing Romney would be more amusing if it didn't remind me of MSNBC choosing Obama in 2007/8 and underscore the fact that our media is completely f*cked.

    I hope Perry is nominated because he would be easier to beat.  It's not too late for him to turn it around IMO but like GA6th says above, they may have been in the bubble too long to realize there is a problem.

    FYI, Cain (none / 0) (#100)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 03:41:26 PM EST
    was not a small biz owner, he was the CEO of a medium-sized pizza chain.  Not quite Pizza Hut, but not small.

    Question for all. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Addison on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 02:08:20 PM EST
    When do you think Romney will manage to get more than 25% of GOP voters on his side? Before the first primary/caucus? By Spring? Never?

    Other non-Romneys are going up and down like whack-a-moles, but Romney's support is almost at about the same level. That's good and consistent for him, but there are 75% of GOP voters who've yet to come around to him despite incredible chaos and incompetence in the rest of the field. When will this enduring feature of the race finally dissipate?

    I think it's a bad idea to count Cain out as the anti-Romney. Aside from Newt and even Trump, he's the last unwhacked mole remotely in contention. And I think it's a bad idea to count out the anti-Romney's chances -- Romney is just such an outsider to the highly-motivated Tea Party folks, and they have a proven track record of coming out to vote for untested candidate and (more importantly) against people they consider RINOs. Why will the most important race they've ever been involved with be any different?


    Well (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 02:32:41 PM EST
    during lots of the Dem primaries did any candidate get more than 25% at this time in the polls? Newt has already been whacked or he actually doesn't need to be whacked because everybody already dislikes him. And Trump dropped out so he didn't really hang around long enough.

    One thing you have to realize is that Cain has never held elective office, he's never run a successful campaign. He's really more or less like Pat Buchanan with less political experience.

    Cain ran for the GOP senate here in GA back in 2004 I think it was. There were three candidates. The race went to a runoff and Cain didn't even make the runoff.

    As far as whack a mole, the WSJ and some other conservative mouthpieces have started talking about how his 9-9-9 program would be a failure. So, yeah, they've started on him.

    Also see above that he has an Enron problem.


    We'll see... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Addison on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 02:53:04 PM EST
    during lots of the Dem primaries did any candidate get more than 25% at this time in the polls?

    I considered this and nearly addressed it in my comment. I think the difference is the chaotic nature of the GOP race as opposed to say the 2004 race. It's true that no Dem in 2004 ever went above 25%, but the stability of that race was astounding. The Dean rise took almost a year to peak and the Clark boom took 3 months. Compare that to Perry and Cain and Bachmann's boomlets. Of course it turned out Dean had a glass jaw and (relevant to this discussion) his big organization and money meant little if the other 75% of voters weren't willing to ever go to his side. So Kerry won and blasted from the middle of the pack to the top.

    In 2008 Giuliani had 30% at this point and Thompson had 19%. McCain was down at 13%. I think that was a bizarre election, and so the fact that Giuliani's trendline from then matches Romney's now is not something I see as important. Giuliani was far inferior to Romney as a candidate -- although he did share a great deal of Romney's weakness among elements that would become the Tea Party.

    In short: Romney has been the only steady hand for a YEAR and yet through all the chaos he hasn't risen at all. I would think that if he were a viable choice for those 35% who immediately flung themselves at Perry he would've seen some benefit from Perry's implosion. Unlike other races we seem to have a large group of voters jumping from flimsy non-Romney lilypad to flimsy non-Romney lilypad, even though Romney is a rock in the middle of the pond. They don't want to be on that rock!

    As far as Cain I just said it's a bad idea to count him out -- I don't think he's this year's Kerry and I don't think Perry's done. That said, I don't view Cain's 2004 Senate run as too important -- this is a different situation entirely. So we'll see what happens, and he certainly has great weaknesses on policy and lacks basic awareness of many different political/diplomatic issues. But if the Tea Party invest itself in him then they've proven over and over they will ride a lame horse all the way.

    But my more general point was just about the anti-Romney sentiment, and the proven fact that the Tea Party does not need a positive reason to come out and vote -- they will vote against perceived RINOs with a great intensity. I think this may prove important whether with Cain, Perry, or whoever.


    I happen to (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 03:07:59 PM EST
    think that the GOP senate race here in GA shows you something about GOP primary voters in the south more or less.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see Cain as VP perhaps but I just don't see him winning the GOP nomination.

    The tea party is definitely jumping from candidate to candidate in search of superman who doesn't exist.

    The only reason I see Perry largely as done is because he keeps digging holes for himself. I mean this guy has been in a bubble for so long that he is clueless and even more so, he has hired inept people to work for him. So he has two huge problems---himself AND his campaign staff. I don't see how he fixes that unless he's willing to buckle down and turn it around, learn from his mistakes etc.  and fire a bunch of people.

    Romney seems to be using the "last man standing" way of winning the primary. He's obviously not the first choice of a lot of GOP primary voters but when you add up all the numbers there's a large portion that seems to have committed to no one. Maybe there's someone like Gary Johnson who can come to the top out of the blue like Bill Clinton did in '92 that they all can rally around. I have no idea.

    I think the larger problem is that the GOP is just a mess right now and probably will be for the foreseeable future.


    By all reports (none / 0) (#101)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 03:46:18 PM EST
    Cain literally has no campaign organization.  He's been running around doing a book tour, doing multi-day bus book tours in irrelevant places like Tennessee, and doing cable TV interviews.  He's not seriously campaigning at all.

    If some huge wave of popular sentiment were to sweep him to primary and caucus wins, that would be one thing.  But he simply isn't in a position to be able to grind it out on the ground.


    We'll see... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Addison on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 05:31:42 PM EST
    I'm not necessarily on the Cain train, although I do think he's the candidate that best fits the GOP's zeitgeist in some ways. I just think it's a bad idea to count any anti-Romney out at this point for the above listed reasons. And so completely discounting the leading anti-Romney candidate (in some polls tied with Romney himself) seems premature.

    Maybe not till the general election (none / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 03:30:34 PM EST
    Reporting from outside Deseret (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 03:42:11 PM EST
    Bookstore:  no indication Romney even exists in the bookstore window.  Is this why he hasn't got a current book?  

    It will not be Romney (none / 0) (#62)
    by loveed on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 04:26:26 PM EST
    And definitely not Cain.
     Every month there is a new flavor. And it's not taking long for the repubs. to drop them.
     I predicted before Perry ever got into the race, he would be out by the first of Oct. Stick a fork in him he's done.  
     I also said there is a fight between the old party & the new(this includes the tea party). The old party wants the crazy to win. The new party wants someone who can run the country. I still think Huntsman is the best choice.
     As usual the media is playing a big part.So little coverage of Huntsman record. His tax plan,or his job plan. But you will hear 9-9-9 all day. Reminds me of the Chris Christi non-run.
     This race is not over. Romney has been running for 5yrs. The party do not like him. It sorta like, anybody but Romney. He cannot get over 23%.
     New Hampshire is ripe for a big surprise. They also know Romney.

    Still don't see how Huntsman (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 06:21:16 PM EST
    does it because if the problem the GOP has with Romney is his religion then that's Huntsman problem too along with having worked for Obama.

    And what exactly is the "New GOP"? To me it's the same GOP it has been for over 30 years now--the Evangelical Nuts and the Country Clubbers. If you're talking about the tea party, that's mostly just the evangelicals with a new name.


    Then there is R. Paul's (none / 0) (#71)
    by christinep on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 06:30:32 PM EST
    Libertarian Group (aka "me, mine, & more of mine" out-of-my space bunch.

    you're still betting on Huntsman? (none / 0) (#64)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 04:56:56 PM EST
    his campaign is reported to be almost out of money

    he has the same problems as Romney but perhaps moreso & with less name recognition

    i don't disagree with you that he would be the most palatable choice among the known GOP candidates (but not as far as the GOP base is concerned)

    what can turn this situation around for Huntsman?


    SITE VIOLATION - SPAM (none / 0) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 11:40:06 AM EST

    Agree 100% BTD (none / 0) (#92)
    by ruffian on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 02:16:35 PM EST
    A good reason for the GOP to regret the Dubya administration. In baseball parlance, they were left with absolutely no bench strength. No ex-VP, no widely respected cabinet members, Bush can't even endorse or campaign for people.

    Of course none of that slows down the flow of money into their coffers, and Obama's performance in office has been somewhat disappointing, so they may pull it out yet, but it won't be because of their great candidates.

    Obama is not a terrific politician (none / 0) (#104)
    by Buckeye on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:26:18 PM EST
    Never has been, always a myth that got exposed after he was election POTUS.  The Clintons are terrific politicians but ran a sh**ty campaign which is one reason why Obama won.