A "Racehorse" Narrative Favorable To Obama

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2012
Posted on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 10:42:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Mitt Romney basically won the GOP nomination last night. He now has a very sizable lead among GOP delegates (better than 3-1 over his closest challenger Santorum), the GOP Establishment support (all the GOP super delegates will go his way) and challengers with no money and no paths to the nomination. In essence, the race is really over.

But a funny thing has happened - the Media, demonstrating its basic incompetence on even the thing they like to cover - the horse race - has declared the issue "wide open." See Ed Kilgore. This is a good thing for Democratic prospects and the prospect of President Obama's reelection. Instead of immediately pivoting to recover ground lost with independent voters, Romney will be forced continue the grovel to the wingnut voters of the GOP. Contrast this with the impatience to end an actual close race in 2008, when Obama and Clinton were never separated by nearly the number of delegates Romney leads Santorum by (with a larger pool) - and yet the "it's over" started even before the March 4, 2008 Ohio and Texas primaries. Chuck Todd is not being trotted out to discuss the "delegate math" and Nate Silver is not being used to ask "why won't they drop out?" More . . .

The funny thing is the people who should be complaining about this "bias" (it was bias, but anti-Clinton bias, normally the Media pretends races are still competitive long after they are essentially decided) are not there because many are leading the charge against Romney.

To be sure, there is now no doubt that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee. And he comes out of the process damaged goods. Dan Balz writes:

Nomination battles often strengthen the winner, but some take a toll. Rarely is there a straight line between March and November that predicts the outcome of a general election. Still, Romney is in worse shape at this point in the campaign than virtually all recent previous nominees.

Demographically, his image among independent voters, the most critical swing group, is more negative now than it was when the primary battle began. He could be hurt among women. He is in trouble with Latinos, a growing part of the electorate that is tilting even more Democratic than it was four years ago. He is not as strong as he needs to be among working-class white voters, among whom President Obama has been consistently weak.

I think Romney should start his pivot to "the middle" immediately. Either the GOP base will come back to him in November or it won't. But he can't waste time, resources and political space trying to woo them back. He needs to recapture ground with Indies.

I doubt he has the boldness to do it, and he would not get McCain fawning treatment from the Media for doing it, but it is what he should do.

Speaking for me only

< Joe Biden in Mexico: Legalization Out of the Question | Wednesday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

A "Racehorse" Narrative Favorable To Obama | 71 comments (71 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

for Romney, the death of a thousand cuts (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 11:11:28 AM EST

more & more it seems that the GOP has its sights set on 2016 & is just as happy to let a Democratic president continue slogging through the economic wreckage of George W. Bush's 8-year squat in the White House

slogging while upholding and enshrining (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by BobTinKY on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 11:19:59 AM EST

the Constitutional portion of said squat.


i think you mean "unconstitutional"? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 11:29:10 AM EST

: well what Bush squated on was the (none / 0) (#24)
by BobTinKY on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 01:06:05 PM EST

Constitution, either way you get my drift.

Romney pivots so often that the (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Anne on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 11:11:39 AM EST

NBA ought to check out what kind of shoes he wears...

So, what do you think of the Eric Cantor endorsement - when I heard about it, I thought it would give Romney some credibility with Tea-Partiers. And then I heard about the Barbara Bush robo-calls - and aside from her being a truly odious person, she is about as establishment as they come, don't you think?

But, as we saw in 2008, the media thinks this is all about them, about their ability to control the message people hear, and to repeat it as often as necessary until enough people believe it. Was there ever a time when the media just took a sideline/spectator position instead of inserting themselves into the process? They kind of remind me of sportscasters who think what they have to say is more important than what's going on on the field.

At this stage, I just want it to be over; I'm so sick of the whole sorry mess I could weep.

And it hasn't even really gotten going yet.

Urk.

If you are a traditional Republican, (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by BobTinKY on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 11:18:21 AM EST

not the troglodytes who Rush has inspired to vote over the past 20 years, I mean the well off cut my taxes, cut social safety net etc type, you've already won 2012.

Worst case you get Obama, who is a Rockefeller Republican at best and as good a friend to Wall Street as anyone running. Best case Romney or some other wingnut who will lavish even more money upon those who have more than they can ever use.

Oh, and war with Iran no matter who wins. Executive assinations of US citizens no matter who wins.

Vote Green, socialist, anything leftist to make your disgust known.

Plus Every Dollar Spent... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 11:19:36 AM EST

...trying to garner primary votes is one dollar less he has in the general election.

The longer they drag this out the less likely Mitt will be able to do what hi is now, out spending his opponents by substantial amounts.

I think the assumption (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by CoralGables on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 01:25:14 PM EST

is that Romney will drop upwards to $50 million of his own into the campaign when he carpet bombs nationwide.


But Obama is apparently worried enough (none / 0) (#12)
by Anne on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 11:39:49 AM EST

about the campaign spending that he's refusing requests by the DCCC and the DSCC for funds from the DNC and OFA to help elect Dems to the House and Senate.

President Barack Obama has a bleak message for House and Senate Democrats this year when it comes to campaign cash: You're on your own.
Democratic congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, have privately sought as much as $30 million combined from Obama for America and the Democratic National Committee -- a replay of the financial help they received from Obama in 2008 and 2010.
But that's not going to happen, top Obama aides Jim Messina and David Plouffe told Reid and Pelosi in back-to-back meetings on Capitol Hill on Thursday, according to sources familiar with the high-level talks. It was a stark admission from a presidential campaign once expected to rake in as much as $1 billion of just how closely it is watching its own bottom line.
Messina and Plouffe told the two Hill leaders that there would be no cash transfers to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from OFA or the DNC, at least not before Election Day, the sources said.

Ignoring the importance of the Dems at least holding the status quo in the Congress just seems like the wrong move, to me.


So the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by sj on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 11:54:57 AM EST

is now Obama's personal campaign chest? Please tell me I'm not interpreting that correctly. Would be happy to be wrong. I suppose he could be financially supporting individual candidates in smaller races. Or maybe he's investing in state parties.

Yeah, that's probably where the money is going.


I know it's Politico, but the article (none / 0) (#16)
by Anne on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 12:29:15 PM EST

I linked to is pretty eye-opening.

The theory seems to be that if Obama gets re-elected, it automatically boosts the chances of Democratic members of the Congress to be re-elected - and Obama's campaigning around the country will have a spill-over benefit for those running.

But, get this:

Hill Democrats won't be seeing much of Obama at their own fundraisers this year, either. Obama has offered to do one money event each for the DCCC and DSCC. OFA officials suggested Vice President Joe Biden do two fundraisers for each campaign committee. Obama will instead send out an email and fundraising letter solicitations for both committees.
Nor, for that matter, have Obama or Biden committed to do events for individual Democratic lawmakers. That's true even though 23 Democrat-held Senate seats are up for grabs in a competitive battle for control of that chamber. And no fundraisers have been scheduled yet for House and Senate Democrats with Cabinet officials, usually a staple of an election-year calendar for incumbent presidents looking to boost their party's prospects.

So, not only is he not going to give them any money, but he's not going to do much to help them raise money.

Oh, well...


Yeah, I read the whole (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by sj on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 01:05:00 PM EST

thing and ended up right where you are on the "disgusted" scale. Not surprised he's not supporting Democratic candidates. He couldn't even bring himself to call himself one last campaign. Nice for him, though, to have access to that Democratic war chest.


I actually LIKE this news. I'm so (none / 0) (#69)
by seabos84 on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 09:46:45 PM EST

fed up with those sell out "moderates" who I voted for - Dud-Crap-kis to 0bummer, '88 to '08 - they all need to be flushed.

On friday night, out here in the Pacified Northwest, great state of Wishy - Warshy, our own local joe lieberman sell out - Rodney Tom, S-MicrosoftBoeing, blew up the Democratic senate by switching sides with 2 other consistent Dem traitors to empower the thugs --- and the state Dem establishment is bleating how their budget was sooooooooooo right wing and sooooooooooo accommodating of right wing revenue lies, and

"boo hoo, the mean meanies threw dirt on my truckie!"

I BLAME the cowards of the Democratic party for the Liebermans & Blanches and Rodney Toms - it has been the same freaking puppet show for 30 years.

Just today I got a whiny sniveling email from a teacher's union "leader" about who were gonna end up with kind of Scott Walker / Wisconsin garbage out here ...

YAWN. no kidding!

and, if you weren't a bunch of grovelling cowards on a good day, and sell outs a normal day, hordes of working stiffs might consider having your back!

IF we sent this crop of diaper wetters back to 1931 and put them in charge, "Brother Can You Spare A Dime" would STILL be a hit.

Go Barack Go! Take care of yourself !! the BEST thing you could do TO the Democratic Party is have YOUR whole class of Clinton-Rahm-Arne sell outs unemployed.

rmm


Well (none / 0) (#71)
by sj on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 10:05:08 PM EST

That's an interesting perspective. I'll have to think about that. It would take a couple of cycles to have meaningful effect. I'll have to think about that.


: this does NOT mean I'll lift a finger (none / 0) (#75)
by seabos84 on Sat Mar 10, 2012 at 09:15:52 AM EST

or give a dime or cast a vote for fascists.
let barack & co. continue on with what they EXCEL at - taking care of themselves.
rmm

Obama (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by jbindc on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 02:41:38 PM EST

Didn't have long coattails in 2008, so the Dems are used to being on their own.


In 2008 (none / 0) (#42)
by CST on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 02:50:52 PM EST

The Democrats won a substantial majority in the senate and the house. His coattails were long enough.


Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by jbindc on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 05:10:20 PM EST

Check out state races and ballot initiatives in 2008 (and then in 2010). More than several state houses and legislatures flipped to the Republicans (ome for the first time since the Civil War) - those same people are now in charge of redistricting and trying to pass crazy state legislation regarding abortion, immigration, etc. (See how many Obama supporters vited FOR Prop 8 in CA)

If his coattails were so long, and had many of his supporters voted for Democratic policies instead of for a personality, things would look a lot diffetent now.

They voted for HIM - not for Democrats. Short coattails, especially in a year when the Dems shoukd have run the table.


: Yes in 2010 (none / 0) (#74)
by CST on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 09:39:03 AM EST

the dems were crushed. That's not what I was referring to. In 2008 they weren't. Not even down ticket ones.

He has a reason to be afraid IMO (none / 0) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 11:44:47 AM EST

If we have a crash before the election, Romney will say "Look at what stimulus did, this happened because they didn't let things hit bottom and the market correct". It will be a fight like hell then and Romney won't have to do anything but show up, there will be bad blood in the water and every Shark will smell it and it could happen to Obama at this point.


He Should Be Scared (none / 0) (#18)
by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 12:31:31 PM EST

In the real world Obama should be knee deep in primaries right now defending his record. But he's what we get and now it's time to woo back all the liberals he's lost over the past 3+ years and that ain't gonna be cheap.

I don't get this part:

Messina and Plouffe told the two Hill leaders that there would be no cash transfers to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from OFA or the DNC, at least not before Election Day, the sources said.

Does that mean they're giving every dollar to Obama or just that they aren't fond of those two specific Committees ? I sure hope the DNC isn't financing just one campaign in November.

The OFA, that's makes sense.


It means (5.00 / 2) (#60)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 07:06:44 PM EST

every dollar is being hoarded for the Obama campaign.


i'm feeling like (none / 0) (#25)
by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 01:13:47 PM EST

it's going to be pretty much a walk for Obama - the rageaholic nutcase GOP has seen to that


: Me too... (none / 0) (#31)
by kdog on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 01:43:34 PM EST

Romney is utterly unlikeable as 1%er posterboy, his own party faithful have to hold their nose to vote for him...and if Newt or Ricky pulled the upset they'd never appeal to indies and moderates and the half-sane.
Oddly enough Ron Paul would have the best shot...he'd draw some support from disaffected lefties so desperate for some change on foreign policy and criminal justice issues that they could overlook his many flaws and general loonyness...but the GOP would hit the self-destruct button before they ever gave him the nomination.

That's the way it reads to me (none / 0) (#40)
by sj on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 02:34:10 PM EST

I hope we are both wrong.


: Pretty Much (none / 0) (#43)
by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 03:18:03 PM EST

Sums up their view of Obama, the golden god, and the rest are just and means to an end. I miss Dean.
I never thought one person could be so destructive to the party. But they lost me because of this kind of stupidity and all their new policies that go a little further right than I am comfortable with.

I,too, doubt that Romney will (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by KeysDan on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 12:51:24 PM EST

pivot to the "middle" at least until after the Tampa convention, and even then it will be no more than baby steps. Mitt is anything but bold, but even more germane is that he has so little to offer. The religious and political zanies in the Republican primaries seem to have scared the daylights out of him, so much that he could hardly read his speech last night. My guess is he will continue to cast his lot with the right and pick up Santorum as his running mate. With both of them on the ticket he might feel comfortable enough taking a day pass from his institutionalization.

Seems bold to me that he has (none / 0) (#21)
by oculus on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 12:55:05 PM EST

so distanced himself from MA health care reform, earlier debate comment nobody is talking about banning birth control, etc.


: Well, maybe (none / 0) (#28)
by KeysDan on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 01:38:08 PM EST

'contemptuous boldness' would better fit the bill.

Oh, oh, oh (5.00 / 5) (#36)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 02:17:20 PM EST

Oh why won't those stupid boys quit! (WWTSBQ!).

Just saying....

: I'm ... (5.00 / 3) (#38)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 02:20:18 PM EST

...feeling sentimental for the old days...tear in my eye....

TTK (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Addison on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 03:42:26 PM EST

But a funny thing has happened - the Media, demonstrating its basic incompetence on even the thing they like to cover - the horse race - has declared the issue "wide open."

The media likes to cover the horse race, therefore it "continues" in mediaworld. I don't think this is necessarily incompetence on the media's part, not here. The horse race gets viewers, they're paid to get viewers, if they report reality on the horse race the horse race ends, so they don't.

This is a good thing for Democratic prospects and the prospect of President Obama's reelection. Instead of immediately pivoting to recover ground lost with independent voters, Romney will be forced continue the grovel to the wingnut voters of the GOP.

I disagree. At this point in the nomination process I think it's best for President Obama's re-election chances to have Romney crowed as the inevitable nominee (and the horse race tagged as "over") so that Romney has to go forward with an unhealed wound. The sooner Romney wraps it up the greater the perception that he was "foisted" on conservatives. More time in the race is simply more time to set the bone before it heals.

You're not just a kiddin either (none / 0) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 10:52:42 AM EST

One Republican "pundit" even said that he doubts a clear Republican leader is evident by June :) I started counting months on my fingers then...and that's five months that Republican pundits who hate Romney AREN'T even going to give him to fight and beat Obama in.

I remain amused though

Define "clear" (none / 0) (#7)
by BobTinKY on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 11:26:33 AM EST

: When you are a Republican and fall in (none / 0) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 11:38:21 AM EST

line when told, clear is when your pundits and Fox News tells you it is :) It's only half that way for Democrats :) Republicans aren't like herding cats though, they are like herding sheep. BTD is right, either Romney goes after his Indies now or he settles for never. And if it is never he's done NOW.

Incompetence? (none / 0) (#9)
by smott on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 11:37:17 AM EST

WHy is this incompetence on the part of the media BTD?

Aren't they just doing what they want to do regardless of circumstance? Not competence-related at all.

They want a horserace now - so they pretend there is one.

They wanted Obama in 2008 - so they pretended there was no contest...

Thoughts?

Default is pretending there is a horse race (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 11:39:10 AM EST

due to incompetence as reporters.

I noted the anti-Clinton bias of the 2008 reporting.


So when they pretend (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by smott on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 12:32:44 PM EST

There is a non-existent horse-race - that is their "default incompetence"...?

What is it when they pretend there isn't one, when there is? As you noted...


You Said it Above (none / 0) (#44)
by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 03:22:11 PM EST

"They want..." Their only want should be truth.

They are suppose to be a neutral group reporting facts, not creating hype to keep themselves relevant. IOW, incompetent.


: More Like (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 08, 2012 at 08:58:08 AM EST

They can't find the truth...

Not incompetent. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Addison on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 03:55:43 PM EST

The horse race gets more viewers/readers.

It's not due to "incompetence" that they are pretending there's still a horse race. It's their job to pretend that.

Whether you still consider that "reporting" or not is up to you, but the people "reporting" the horse race on CNN, MSNBC, NYT, etc. -- they're not incompetent in pretending there's still a competitive horse race any more than (let's say) football announcers are "incompetent" in implying that an upset is still possible even though the favored team is up 28 in the 4th. Most announcers know that the game is over, but a done deal loses viewers and isn't personally exciting to talk about. An announcers job is (partially) to retain viewers and they personally like to be excited. Journalism in major media function the same way on a business and personal level.

You're just an idealist when it comes to journalism, I guess? If they get it wrong it's because they couldn't get it right? No. It's because they have no real interest in getting it "right".


Just for the record (none / 0) (#51)
by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 04:54:35 PM EST

The media wanted a fight and a long contest, not one particular candidate.

All indications that the media gave the nomination to Obama somehow are to be refuted with the quickness.

And here I am doing that.


the media (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 05:10:50 PM EST

can call the "race" but they don't bestow the nomination, as you well know

prominent voices in the media were calling it for Obama as early as January

you could look it up


No, just for the record (5.00 / 3) (#61)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 07:11:19 PM EST

as soon as Obama began to win some stuff in the 2008 primary season, the media no longer wanted a fight and a long contest but instead immediately began insistently calling for Hillary to get out immediately. (Sometimes referred to as "Why won't the b** quit?")

I believe BTD is contrasting that with the media's current obsession with hoping for a long contest in this race.

It's an, um, interesting contrast, don't you think?


: interesting contrast indeed (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 07:15:15 PM EST

& as the title of BTD's post says, the media narrative favors Obama in 2012, as it did in 2008
what was it BTD said in 2008 about Obama? oh yeah: "media darling"

Baseless claims and gratuitous assertions ... (none / 0) (#58)
by Yman on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 06:41:20 PM EST

.. are not "refuting" anything.


OMG, not a Puma, but, still . . . . (none / 0) (#15)
by oculus on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 11:56:36 AM EST

Are you hinting (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by CoralGables on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 01:29:53 PM EST

that someone might be chumming the waters?


: heh (none / 0) (#35)
by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 02:06:27 PM EST

i too had that thought about BTD's post & sometimes that red meat is tasty but today i am abstaining even if some commenters choose to lay that bait out

Well, we're clearly overdue (5.00 / 5) (#37)
by Towanda on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 02:18:05 PM EST

in critiquing Romney's physique. Specifically, his ankles. It's time to spread the rumor that he never is seen in shorts, is that he has crankles.

Really, ask yourselves, America: Why is this man always seen in a pantsuit?

The media love them that sort of important debate that so matters for the future of this country.


He's a mannequin (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by Edger on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 05:34:18 PM EST

He was manufactured that way. They're part of his body.

Those aren't pants. There is nothing inside them.

Mitt Romney "Puts the 'Man' in 'Mannequin'"


The man needs (5.00 / 3) (#67)
by Towanda on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 09:02:28 PM EST

a teleprompter. I hear they turn pols into brilliant speakers.


: Heh. (none / 0) (#68)
by Edger on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 09:07:50 PM EST

Does wonders for Obama, doesn't it? ;-)

Ding, ding, ding! (none / 0) (#62)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 07:12:16 PM EST

Winner!


Omigod, those are MY mom jeans (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Towanda on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 08:59:35 PM EST

and I just threw up a little bit in my mouth at seeing them on Romney. We have the same physique now, I fear. I am recommitted to my exercise plan, so that only one of us will be wearing mom jeans by the election.


i've heard of cankles (none / 0) (#39)
by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 02:33:05 PM EST

but what are crankles? cankles on a Republican crank? crabby, dysthymic cankles? really cr@ppy-looking cankles? inquiring minds, etc.


: D*mn auto-correct (none / 0) (#66)
by Towanda on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 09:01:07 PM EST

made a mess of much of that comment!
That and lack of sleep. Hectic days here, as well as nights visiting the ICU. Long story, but all is improving now . . . until the next time for a family member with cancer. And cancer seriously sucks.

Strange.... I seem to remember (none / 0) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 12:30:02 PM EST

Hillary and Obama going at it in June...

not so much (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 01:01:13 PM EST

Hillary "suspended" her campaign on June 6

but, as BTD notes, the media had long since declared the "race" over - in the case of Mark Halperin, as early as the night of the 2008 Iowa caucuses, & he was closely followed by Tweety, who was urging Clinton to withdraw if she didn't win the New Hampshire primary (which, IIRC, the media had already called for Obama . . . )


The race was over in June (none / 0) (#52)
by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 04:55:52 PM EST

which is why Hillary suspended. It was over earlier than that actually.


: my comment is about (5.00 / 4) (#54)
by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 05:08:16 PM EST

the behavior of certain media figures, not about the particulars of the actual 2008 primary season, which are of course in many respects matters of opinion
if you disagree with my comment, please refute what i said about the behavior of Mark Halperin & Chris Matthews
but you won't be able to, because their behavior is a matter of factual record, not a matter of opinion
you could look it up

: So we kept hearing (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Yman on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 06:43:53 PM EST

... from you, Tweety, et. al.
Heh.

American Politics is the Life Magazine scam (none / 0) (#29)
by Dadler on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 01:40:12 PM EST

From the movie "Tin Men" (LINK)

: Really good flick. (none / 0) (#70)
by oculus on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 09:52:49 PM EST

The Romney March Problem (none / 0) (#30)
by CoralGables on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 01:41:45 PM EST

March 10 Kansas
March 13 Alabama
Hawaii
Mississippi
March 17 Missouri
March 20 Illinois
March 24 Louisiana

How many Romney wins are there to keep him pulling away or force others to drop out?

Hawaii and Illinois (none / 0) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 02:02:01 PM EST

Besides, it's about delegates.

It's all proportional. No winner take all EXCEPT California and New York, Romney states.

It's over.


: Santorum, Gingrich and Paul (none / 0) (#64)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 07:16:08 PM EST

got just enough votes in the VT primary yesterday to deny Romney a 50 percent share, which would have given him all the state's delegates, so now he only gets half. This has so enraged the local Romney people, who expected to win overwhelmingly, that they've accused... somebody, not clear who.. of some kind of unspecified shenanigans in the vote counting.

shhhhhh (none / 0) (#32)
by CST on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 01:51:12 PM EST

I think he's catching on.

A little bit of a dig? emphasis mine

""The nomination is an impossibility for Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich," one top Romney adviser said. "All we have to do is keep doing what we're doing and we can get to the nomination. Those guys, it's going to take some sort of act of God to get to where they need to be."

Just (none / 0) (#33)
by lentinel on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 01:55:25 PM EST

love to watch the duo of Romney and Obama pivoting to the middle.

Do si do.

Gingrich (none / 0) (#48)
by CoralGables on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 04:36:10 PM EST

cancels Kansas events prior to this Saturday's caucus. With Huckabee winning Kansas in 2008 with 59%, Saturday could be a cakewalk for Santorum.

Perhaps (none / 0) (#72)
by lilburro on Wed Mar 07, 2012 at 11:06:32 PM EST

the media is expecting something apocalyptic to happen in the GOP race. Clearly a sizable part of the GOP want that to happen, so why not? I don't think Santorum would mount a 3rd party campaign but perhaps the media does. It's hard to imagine him "campaigning hard" for Romney at the moment. Even during the most heated moments in 2008 I was pretty sure Clinton would campaign. The philosophical/policy difference was not that great. If it was Romney v. Gingrich I could see them coming together, but Romney/Santorum, I don't know.