Right now it looks like I will be adding to my record of being consistently wrong about everything, as it sure seems Romney is going to be the nominee. Can any of you outline any realistic scenario in which any other than Romney is the nominee? How does it happen.
As far as I am concerned, the only thing left is to determine whether the Paulards can be bigger dead-enders than the PUMA jackasses.
JasonF
Realistic scenario: Two out of Perry, Santorum, and Gingrich drop out and the social conservatives coalesce behind the remaining one of those three. It’s unlikely, but possible.
gogol's wife
I don’t know, but I just explained “Santorum” to my friend in Moscow over the phone. It definitely tested my translating abilities, but she was in hysterics when I finished, so I guess I managed it.
gogol's wife
But wait. Did you really think someone other than Romney was going to win? I missed that post.
LittlePig
As far as I am concerned, the only thing left is to determine whether the Paulards can be bigger dead-enders than the PUMA jackasses.
The Paultards are sincere. PUMAs are not. So while the Paultards may well be the bigger dead-enders, at least they are walking their talk.
PUMAs, on the other hand, are trolls.
Fed Up In Brooklyn
I wonder if Paul would ever consider a run as an independent. No doubt would hurt Romney more than Obama. Probably make an easy victory into a massacre.
lacp
Paul and his tribe will be around until the bitter end and then some. He’s got plenty of money to keep going (if not enough to win anything), he’s not running for re-election, and he’s a man with a mission. If he winds up with more than a handful of delegates, I expect him to try to make a lot of noise at the convention.
Corner Stone
And surprisingly, I plan to beat you, and others here, about the head and neck on this topic for some undetermined period of time.
LittlePig
And of course Romney’s going to be the candidate – that’s been a given for months.
The joy is seeing him ripped by his own compatriots – I never dreamed Newt would come back so viciously, and he’ll only be stronger in the South.
In other words, “the rats, they f*ck themselves!”
ETA (not that Newt isn’t vicious, I never dreamed the money would keep following him)
schrodinger's cat
Invite Romney to West Virginia, then Tunch will take care of the rest. Colbert assures me that Romney is nutritious and delicious and tender, since he is milk fed.
joes527
In answer to your question: Of course not.
But it isn’t too late in the game to root for injuries!
kindness
John you know when you start a thread with those lines
you will only give support to those here who like to give you a hard time. Thankfully, I’m not one of them.
Let the trolls begin!
Duh Oh! I see I’m already too late. My bad.
Comrade Mary
I’ve read speculation — somewhere — that Paul and Romney have an informal agreement. He sticks around, does some pro forma hammering of Romney, and takes votes away from Gingrich and Perry/Santorum, helping Romney get his plurality against a weak, crazy field that is still garnering some support from primary voters.
Hal
1. In reading comments at various sites and blogs, I’m struck at how many posters will say Romney is the fakest faker who ever faked, but then follow it up with a comment about how he’s still better than Obummer!
I find it difficult to imagine how you can acknowledge your absolute loathing for someone, but still vote for him simply because he not that one.
2. I’m super fascinated by who Romney will choose as his running mate. I would have said Cain before he imploded, but now I’m just not sure. Maybe Chris Christie, though I think that’s a bad choice given he’s only been Gov for what, 2 years? I expect Palin to start popping up around now with not so subtle hint hints that she’s interested. We’ll see…
Violet
Of course it’ll be Mitt. It’s his turn.
A more interesting question to me is: who’s coming in second? Whose turn will it be in 2016? Ron Paul? Really? The GOP doesn’t even want to acknowledge he exists and plus he’ll be 80 years old then. The GOP always seems to anoint the next in line. Who’s next in line? No one but Paul, as far as I can tell. GOP’s in disarray.
balconesfault
I suspect that Paul’s last stand at the convention will be over the GOP incorporating some strong anti-Fed language in their platform.
He knows the GOP will never adopt even a sliver of his foreign policy … so this is the one concession he might demand.
If the GOP refuses that – we might well see Paul make one final 3rd party run.
And if he does … we’ll get to see how many stoners out there will ignore the Obama-Romney race to register their commitment to decriminalizing drugs.
Raven
@Fed Up In Brooklyn: The conventional wisdom is that he’d queer the deal for his jive ass motherfucker son if he did, so he won’t.
wrb
Rush is for Romney, game over
RalfW
JC:
Johnathan Bernstein lays out the five improbable scenarios over at Greg Sargent’s place.
Gin & Tonic
@LittlePig:
In a month nobody but us obsessives will remember, or care. Call me a concern troll, but I see a Romney victory in November as a better than even shot right now. He has no convictions at all, but he is also photogenic and not obviously insane, which may well be good enough.
Violet
@Hal:
Susanna Martinez, the female, Latina governor of New Mexico. Hits all the right pandering notes.
chopper
romney’s real shot in SC is in a depressed turnout combined with a bunch of opponents all stepping on their dicks trying to attack him and carve up the not-romney vote. he’s got a good shot at both which makes for a win, but not a very healthy one.
in all seriousness, what the hell is the GOP going to do if romney wins the nom? has anyone actually tried to figure that shit out? is the base seriously going to say ‘fuck it’?
General Stuck
Reagan Cadaver Ticket
trollhattan
Realistically it’s never been anybody but Romney, given the quality of the competetion, but rather can they make Romney run for the nomination rather than run for the general, prior to the convention.
If a different whackdoodle can score well in SC, then Romney has to continue campaigning against Republicans and not just the president. If so, I’ll take it.
As to the Paultards, yes, they’re far worse than PUMAs and methinks a bit more desperate, as he’s dang old and doesn’t have another run in him in four years (at least if there’s a God).
Violet
@wrb:
Really? When did that happen?
Napoleon
@Hal:
It will be that Cuban Sen from Fla.
Fed Up In Brooklyn
This is all a dog and pony show anyway. GOP knows they aren’t taking the White House. Why would they even want to? They get to hold hostages over and over, forcing right wing policies into effect, then get to blame a Democratic POTUS for the horrific results.
chopper
@Violet:
a moderate-turned-gooper mormon picking a democrat-turned-gooper catholic. that’ll get the base jazzed up.
Satanicpanic
None, Romney is it. Everyone was saying “Oh no, he’s got a good chance to beat Obama!” Uh, the guy who likes firing people? The guy who “can’t have illegals, for pete’s sake?” The guy who knows what it’s like to be unemployed? Yeah, right.
Amir Khalid
I’m kind of curious to see how Noot’s campaign to undermine Mitt gets on. mistermix has gamed it out and concluded that it’s a winner for Noot, no matter what happens to Mitt. Which seems a plausible hypothesis; but I still think it’s possible the party elders might have cause (and means) to punish Noot, if by kneecapping their own best candidate for president he winds up gifting re-election to Obama.
amk
I don’t know if NH rethugs are any different from the fundies of the south (on the voting front) but per politico 49% of party faithfuls voted for willard with rupaul coming distant second at 16%. I think it may be over unless SC’ians knee-cap him.
trollhattan
@Hal:
Huntsman. For ticket diversity.
Corner Stone
@Fed Up In Brooklyn:
SCOTUS prophylactic. That and Federal judges are what they care about most, long term.
Legalize
@Fed Up In Brooklyn:
He might like to. But that would make his son person non grata in the GOP. On the other hand, maybe they don’t give a shit about that; maybe they see an actual movement for the Randroid to helm after the old man hangs it up.
The Moar You Know
Never could and still cannot now.
Guster
“Can any of you outline any realistic scenario in which any other than Romney is the nominee?”
Gingrich wins SC big after Santorum dribbles in the polls and Perry drops out, then takes Florida off SC momentum.
Not sure that’s exactly realistic, though I think it’s barely possible.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Napoleon: McDonnell from VA. Popular in a swing state, right religion, right rhetoric, right accent, right skin tone. Chris Christie’s too yankee for the South, too obnoxious for indies. I don’t think Romney has enough wiggle room to pick Rubio or Martinez.
Somebody said at this point, Ron is just building a Paultard base for Rand– on the other point, I think Paultards outnumber PUMAs by a pretty big margin.
rlrr
@trollhattan:
Huntsman. For ticket diversity.
A rich white Mormon and a richer white Mormon – Republican diversity in a nutshell.
Aet
It’s been said already: the only scenario approaching realism is that all but one of the not-Romneys drops out.
But this would never and could never happen. These people have a shaky grip on patriotism, they certainly don’t care whether or not their party wins if they aren’t at the top of the ticket. They’d never leave the primaries until just before the appointed hour, its how they build legitimacy when they go on the wingnut circuit.
wrb
@Violet:
Over the last couple of days, judging from the stories on his website.
Newt and Perry did the unforgivable: tried to fire populist resentment against the rich, an attack on Rush’s life’s work.
Despite his warts, Mitt is now the champion of The Cause. All must rally.
Edit: I would love to discover that Rush doesn’t control the working class and that they don’t reject Newt’s effort to get them to side with their own interests. Wouldn’t bet on it though.
Violet
@amk:
SC has an open primary, so anyone can vote, right?
LittlePig
@Gin & Tonic: Oh no, not a concern troll, at all, but people underrate Barack Obama as a *Candidate*. While his innate Casper Milquetoast keeps him from being a better president that he has turned out to be, he still is a remarkable campaigner with an excellent sense of timing.
Obama will win a second term. Mitt may be photogenic, with his shoulders that make Chris Matthews cream, but he sounds like a phony. Mitt never had a future as a flim-flam man: he can’t fake sincerity.
Not to mention Mitt uses Kiwi for toothpaste because of his foot-in-mouth disease.
AliceBlue
Winning the New Hampshire primary seems to be a bit of a curse. The last non-incumbent presidential candidate to win New Hampshire and go on to win the White House was Bush Sr. in 1988.
flukebucket
I knew Romney was the guy from the start but these damn upstate commercials are absolutely brutal. Gingrich is scorching the earth and poisoning the wells. It is glorious to behold.
dmsilev
It’s most likely over, but let’s wait a week or so for South Carolina before saying for sure. Romney had to endure a day or two of bad press re: his past life as a vulture, but he’ll have to survive a week or more of saturation advertising on that subject to make it past the next hurdle. If he can do that, in a social conservative state, he’s got the nomination. If Gingrich or Santorum can tear him down enough to take the state, then the clown show continues probably until Super Tuesday (early March).
R Johnston
Well, it’s possible that Citizens United comes to the rescue. In previous cycles it would be too late at this stage of the cycle for a bunch of notRomneys to drop out and for the vote to coalesce around a single notRomney; the remaining notRomney just wouldn’t have the money to compete. This cycle, so long as the field gets winnowed down in time for the Koch brothers or similar to dump a few score millions of dollars into a Super Tuesday ad blitz there’s plenty of money available for a notRomney to compete for the nomination.
Of course there are still the problems of the Republican field being spectacularly incompetent and of Ron Paul making a two way race between Romney and notRomney impossible . . .
Punchy
But doesn’t the whole thing hinge on who Sarah Palin endorses?
Corner Stone
@Violet: MSNBC’s been running a clip showing Rush just bashing NewtPAC for their anti-capitalism ads. Saying they should end it with, “I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.”
Not sure Rush is for Romney, but he sure as heck hates the attacks.
Violet
@wrb:
Yeah, makes sense. Mitt represents The Money now, so Rush et al will rally behind him. Heh. I’m sure there’s a Santorum joke in there somewhere.
rlrr
@Punchy:
A few days a ago the press made it seem like the whole thing hinged on who Kelly Clarkson endorsed…
General Stuck
Romney is running on serendipitous fumes winning on the volatile mix of conservative candidates that all have fatal flaws to win a general, and in general. And Romney has played this field pretty well so far, in no small part due to the arrival of many pots of gold and reams of bullshit pandering.
But at some point, I wonder if there won’t be an all out revolt from the base, that is now the most
batshitconservative it has been in my lifetime. Reading tea leaves with the current GOP is a dicey thing, and I don’t have a clue who or what they will do or choose.Maude
Please take Christie as the VP candidate. Get him out of NJ. Please.
kindness
@balconesfault: C’mon now. I’m a card carrying Prop 215 guy and proud of it. Do you really think I would value a crazy man who would strip women of their right to birth control & abortion because I agree with ONE of Paul’s libertarian notions? Gut Social Security & MediCare?
No. Not gonna happen.
Napoleon
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
You have me convinced!
Sloegin
One of the candidates could still pull what Bush did in SC, gin up some ‘illegitimate black child’ rumor vs Romney… or just go for the usual Mormon ‘cultist’ or ‘Mexican Mexican Mexican’ bits. Winning SC is easy if you’re just willing to go all in on the sleaze.
Attacking him from the left in a R primary? probably not the most brilliant tactic.
trollhattan
@Punchy:
Tawd has already done the endorsin’ thing. For Newton!
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/01/10/why-todd-palin-endorsed-newt-gingrich
Violet
@Corner Stone:
I think I saw that clip this morning. Newt and Rush are good buddies, though, right? I think if Newt could win SC that Rush would could around.
The Moar You Know
@Fed Up In Brooklyn: Hey, welcome back. Thought everyone should get a look at your true feelings:
You, this blog, December 20, 2011. Linked for great justice.
I’m your number 1 fan.
Brachiator
Nothing that does not involve extraterrestrial spaceships appearing in the sky and aliens taking over.
@Gin & Tonic:
Anything is possible, I guess.
But even if Romney is Mr Inevitable 2012, he doesn’t just have to win the primaries, he has to mollify those Republicans who are not happy with him and simultaneously appeal to moderates and independents.
Aside from being judged on his handling of the economy, Obama has to deal with all those who are disenchanted because they didn’t get a pony or a unicorn.
But I don’t see any of this yet making a Romney victory even close to an even money bet yet.
amk
@Violet: wiki says it is, though we do not know what kinda loyalty checks the rethugs may surreptitiously impose.
Southern Beale
There is nothing more annoying than a Ron-Bot. Heard one on Alex Bennett’s radio show this morning trying to claim that Ron Paul hasn’t signed on to all the fringey stuff you read in the Libertarian platform, all that goldbug crap. I mean Jesus the guy signed letters saying as much.
And seriously, I don’t know how it is anywhere else but here in Nashville where he has a devoted following, his army of devotees hammer up signs on every fucking utility pole around town, and way WAY up high too, some have been there for years. There’s been a “Democrats For Ron Paul” sign on a light in front of a library since 2008.
I mean please. If you Ron Paul had a real following he wouldn’t need his army of college brats putting signs up in the public right of way and on utility poles everywhere. They’d be in peoples’ yards.
General Stuck
The Mormon gets the nod, and watch out for baby jeevus on the warpath, with locust plagues, raining fish, all that kind of shit.
colby
@Gin & Tonic: Okay, but there’s nothing saying this is the last month anyone can attack Romney. For all the snickering about “Obambi”, he actually pretty relentlessly hammered McCain in ’08. And now, his attacks on Romney can be predicated by “Even Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry say…”
Hill Dweller
Unless the economy picks up pace, Romney, despite being a complete fraud, has a very good chance of winning in November.
The new Quinnipiac poll has Romney leading Obama in FL by 3, due almost entirely to higher support by his party. He leads Obama nationwide in the recent CBS poll by 2.
Relative to the amount of accurate info readily available, the US has arguably the most ignorant electorate in recorded human history. For 30 years, people have been voting against their own economic interests, and I don’t see that stopping in November. A sizable portion of the country will vote for a guy that would throw them out on the street in a heartbeat if he thought it would make him some money, simply because he has an R behind his name.
Comrade Dread
Well that depends on which class of people they belong to:
The true Objectivist believers will stay home or back a third party run.
Likewise with the anti-war crowd.
The Tea Party crowd will bitch and moan, but still vote Romney. Unless they’re that combination of Evangelical Objectivist, in which case they’ll go with the Constitution party.
The Civil Liberties crowd will bitch and moan, but still vote Obama.
The independents who voted for him will probably split between Romney and Obama depending on how right or left leaning they are.
taylormattd
I’m not sure you are right John. Romney doesn’t even have half of the already allotted delegates from the two states. If I’m not mistaken, (and who knows, maybe I am) the republicans have almost no winner-take all primaries. If Romney continues to max out at 39% in states where he allegedly “dominates”, it’s not clear to me he will have a majority of delegates at the convention.
dww44
@chopper: Yep,the base will show up and they will vote for their nominee. No matter who he or she is. Unlike Dems, GOP’ers don’t NOT show up to cast their votes. They always, always do. Even the younger among them. Too principled to vote is not a characteristic action that would apply to any Republican of my acquaintance and I know plenty of them.
Mobile Grumpy Code Monkey
The only scenario in which Romney is not the nominee is if he drops out of the race altogether due to financial, health, or legal reasons. He and Paul are the only candidates who have been playing to win.
None of the others have a hope in hell.
Southern Beale
There is going to be a lot of nose-holding from a LOT of different quarters of Conservadom in November. The only way they can do that is to scare the crap out of people.
I expect the next election to reach a new height of ugly. There will be smears and lies that make birtherdom and the Kerry “Swift Boat” crap pale in comparison. That is the ONLY way they can win. Expect Breitbart and O’Keefe to be working overtime. Expect D.C. front groups like Berman’s outfit to be churning out the phony advocacy groups by the dozens. Patriot Depot will issue thousands of fearmongering e-mails about how S0c1al1st Obama is outlawing the Bible and replacing it with gay p0rn in every church pew.
Just you wait. It’s gonna be a hell of a summer. And will our media do their sacred duty and not pile on? Don’t count on it.
dww44
@Napoleon: I believe you may be right. He’s got the looks and the name and the pedigree and he’s from the ultimate key battleground state.
General Stuck
@taylormattd:
You are not mistaken. New rules this election for delegation of delegates on a percent of votes basis in any given state.
trollhattan
@Southern Beale:
Ron Paul crawled in bed with the John Birchers and snuggles there to this day. What’s ambiguous about that?
He is who he is, despite several years of playing Frasier’s father on teevee.
amk
@taylormattd: I think they have proportional delegates only up to super tuesday and winnah takes all after that.
Yutsano
@General Stuck: The religious right got their bite of the apple. They got the taste of power. They like it. I’m still dying for all those Baptist preachers to suddenly go from decrying the evils of the Mormon cult to full-throated support of said bishop in that cult. In fact, if any of the other crazies really wanted to win SC just mention that. Willard is a Mormon bishop. That’ll send the hypocrisy into overdrive.
General Stuck
@Hill Dweller:
While I think this is true in general, I no longer view the electorate as being motivated due to lack of knowledge about issues and stuff. Which is true, but rendered moot because they vote on what they care about most, which is formed on the wingnut side, by a deep and abiding dislike to hatred of what they define as liberalism. And I think they know full well all they need to know to make that choice.
They support dem programs and issues, by and large, especially domestic economic issues, but just don’t care enough for that to trump their tribal passions. The only antidote to that I can see, is a degree of econ deprivation we have not arrived at, yet.
Brachiator
@Southern Beale:
I don’t think that the media has any sacred duty, but I agree with you that the election campaign will be ugly, not because this is the ONLY way that the GOP can win, but more because this is their standard operating procedure, how they always think they can win.
RalfW
In keeping with the It Really Is Over theme, Steve Benen sez
Pococurante
Only Jeb can save them now.
flukebucket
I love Red State in the morning. Some of the comments following this one are beautiful.
Hill Dweller
@Southern Beale: This. They will try to destroy him. Hell, the Republicans in the Senate did things we’ve never seen before, and got away without it without the media making a peep.
Last night, I watched Brokaw completely excuse Romney’s time at Bain. According to Charlie Pierce, Gergen and Gloria Borger were doing the same thing.
The Republican challengers going full OWS scared a lot of people in power. We’re seeing a lot of Very Serious People rally to Willard’s defense, which is a bigger indictment of the elites in this country than anything I can say.
Cat Lady
The Romneytronic2000 is not programmed for interaction with the common class of carbon based humanoids, or for confrontation. He’s going to be caught off key so many times between now and November his low unlikeability factor will be subterranean and that’s even before he gets the tax return issues and being the bishop of a secretive cult questions rubbed into that smirky face. That’s what that speech of his last night about Obama being a foreigner was about – pure projection, again.
Pillsy
Outside of obvious live boy/dead girl scenarios, I think it’ll be Romney. Which is weird, because he’s a terrible candidate, lacking even the modest virtues of a Bob Dole or John McCain. I can’t figure out whether the GOP just thinks the economy is going to win this one for them or if they’re completely convinced that Obama has it in the bag.
ChrisNYC
I think it’s careful what you wish for with the other candidates dropping out. I just can’t see Romney benefiting from running against Obama for months and months. Too much exposure. There’s just not enough there (because he insists on hiding what the hell he actually is about) to support it.
Yutsano
@Hill Dweller:
This is where I get thankful popular support don’t mean boo. Obama’s team must be acutely aware of this because he’s focusing on battleground states right now. That and the Republicans are eating up all the oxygen in the national press. We’re a long way out and not everyone knows Willard just yet.
General Stuck
@Yutsano:
It all depends on their desire to be rid of Obama versus the religious bigotry and rivalry they are chock full of. I don’t know what inner demon will win or lose that battle in the true believer mind.
It will be interesting to see it play out. As a liberal, these kinds of competing memes are foreign to me. I just can’t wait for Mitt to stutter his way out of “I like firing people”
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
I’m pretty sure Obama will win, but everyone needs to remember the words “Supreme Court.”
eemom
Obama’s gonna win, and it’s gonna be a stomp.
You heard it here.
The Moar You Know
@Yutsano: Interesting that the GOP should have to take on the burden of doing this. What if they don’t? Do we have Democrats that want to win badly enough that they’re willing to drag Romney’s religion into this?
Lord knows the GOP is going to hammer Obama with his blackness, his imagined religious beliefs, his wife’s blackness, anything they can pick up they will throw. I want to know if Dems are going to find their collective spines and start fighting fire with fire, or whether they’re going to do what they’ve always done, which is reach for the smelling salts and the fainting couches and cry loudly and pathetically about the injustice of it all. While the GOP wins.
cmorenc
@John Cole:
The Paulards who are also partisan registered GOP will mostly come home and turn out in November for Mittens, though to a small extent less reliably than other hard-core members of the base.
The Paulards who are nominally independents or only very weak GOP partisans may indeed either stay home or even defect in November. However, even if this portion of the Paulards who e.g. did turn out to vote in the GOP NH primary yesterday is only ten percent or so (out of just the Paulards, not the total GOP base), that could be enough to swing three or four close states in November.
wrb
That is the answer to John’s question. One of the others could win if a superpac or a group of churches went after the Bishop thing with no inhibitions: infomercials detailing the Romney polygamous history w pictures, an illustrated course on all the weird theology, the magic underwear, Kolub, the personal planet etc.
eemom
Speaking of the Supreme Court, Cole’s gonna go batshit crazy about today’s 8-1 decision on credit card arbitrations in 3…2….1…..
trollhattan
@General Stuck:
Southern Baptist voter: “Mooslum/Mormon? Mooselum/Mormon?”
I think I know the outcome of that deliberation.
WaterGirl
@Comrade Mary: If that’s actually true, which I believe is quite possible, then Ron Paul is a complete phony. Which I also believe is quite possible.
trollhattan
Hey, maybe it’s good Goodhair is stickin’ around for a bit.
http://wonkette.com/460056/sean-hannity-watches-in-horror-as-rick-perry-declares-himself-socialist#more-460056
schrodinger's cat
A brief respite from discussing the boring Romneybot.
Cute, plush, tubbeh and white, not Tunch but a baby polar bear!
Napoleon
@taylormattd:
For the most part their delegates are given on a winner take all basis, it is just that these few early primaries don’t have that.
chopper
@Southern Beale:
there’s gonna be a lot of nose-holding and ‘fuck, i can’t believe i’m doing this’-itis. that kind of excited, jazzed-up electorate is guaranteed to give romney a win.
lacp
Many here seem to believe that Willard has it sewn up. Yet even as we type our comments, I have it on good authority that South Carolina is being flooded by a wave of Santorum….
Disco
Two words: John Kerry
trollhattan
[FYWP–in moderation because page link contained the evil sock-a-list. Mongo use different link.]
Hey, maybe it’s good Goodhair is stickin’ around for a bit.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/sean-hannity-goes-after-rick-perry-calling
Mnemosyne
@Hill Dweller:
A) What’s the margin of error in those polls? It’s usually at least +/-3, so what you’re actually looking at is them running even.
B) Like so many Republicans, to know know know Romney is to loathe loathe loathe him, so I really don’t think he’s going to benefit by the massive media expose he’ll get in the general campaign, especially once the Obama campaign aims their guns at him.
Yutsano
@The Moar You Know: Well we’re talking primaries here. Obama would be well-served to avoid the religious issue entirely. Some shady PAC on the other hand…
@schrodinger’s cat: SQUEEEEE!!
Lol
Many of the “proportional” states are winner take all if the winner breaks 50%.
Roger Moore
I think the only vaguely realistic non-Romney scenario is that something bad happens to him out of the blue. That could be either something physically bad (e.g. accident, assassination, sudden heart attack, etc.) or something politically bad (e.g. dead girl, live boy, etc.). Other than that, it’s hard to imagine any of the current candidates winning, and even harder to imagine the Republican savior swooping in to save the day.
RalfW
@Brachiator:
Here’s a sampling, via Benen:
Now, that base gap can be made up. The incumbent has many advantages, but during the think of the horse-race coverage of the opposing primary season, Obama has kinda disappeared.
But anecdotally, I sure see plenty of left-wing butthurt out there. Enough to make things risky.
Mnemosyne
@Disco:
Really? I don’t remember too many Democrats who hated Kerry, much less hated him with the passion that “loathing” seems to require. He wasn’t the most inspiring candidate, but feeling “meh” about Kerry is not the same thing as hating him.
trollhattan
@Mnemosyne:
I’m expecting flags, lots and lots of flags. And shiny cities on the hill. And tons more zombie Reagan references. Months upon endless months of them. The nation will be floded with teevee purchases like what California experienced from Whitman.
And very little unscripted Mittens. I suspect he’ll have a more subtle Sarah(tm)-style media embargo for the duration.
Satanicpanic
@flukebucket: Oh that was a good read. I take much pleasure in seeing them so miserable in having to support old creepy Romney.
cmorenc
@eemom:
IF current trends continue, probably yes. However, there are several potential wild cards that may come out of the deck between now and November that could negatively disturb this trajectory, having to do with abrupt disruptions that interfere with the trend toward economic recovery.
1) The European potential economic clusterfuck is realized sometime over the next six months in a form that causes strong ripple effects upon the US economy tangible at ground level to voters.
2) The GOP congress-critters leverage a destructive government default or shut-down for which too many voters blame both Congress and Obama. For example, see the debt-ceiling near fiasco last summer. For too many lower-information voters, they won’t delve into analyzing which side actually bears fault enough to pin responsibility entirely on radical Tea-Party Congresspersons and feckless GOP congressional leadership where it belongs; the attitude will be “a pox on both your houses” for too many of these voters who’ll want to throw ALL the bums out.
chopper
@Mnemosyne:
yeah, a lot of dems were meh about kerry, but nothing compared to the way most goopers feel about mittens. half the party hates the guy.
Hal
@Hill Dweller:
I’m guessing this is well within the margin of error, meaning either could be on top in these polls?
Also, I have always been under the impression that the challenger initially does well against the incumbent in the theoretical match up many months before the actual election? That’s why I never get excited either way. I seem to remember John Kerry kicking Bush’s ass around now, and wasn’t Mondale up like 20 points over Reagan initially, only to go down in flames?
danimal
I came into the primary season hoping for a drawn-out bloodletting that weakens Romney (who has always been the inevitable nominee). Now I’m hoping for a quick Romney knockout.
Why? Because the GOP really doesn’t like Romney one bit, he’s a fake as a plastic $3 bill. If the vast majority of GOP voters have to watch Romney win over the clown college that has assembled against him without having a real choice, they will utterly lack enthusiasm for the next several months.
The GOP noise machine will crank it up to 11, but I don’t see megachurch pastors expending any real energy on behalf of a (in their view) cult member. I can’t imagine a scenario in which the GOP is fired up about Romney, except in opposition. A third party could easily siphon off 5-10% in this scenario.
Go, Mitt, Go!
Joel
Romnney is trading at 85% to be the nominee right now, which is roughly the odds that Vegas has on the Patriots beating the Broncos on Saturday. To put everything in relative terms.
wrb
@Satanicpanic:
I enjoyed reading of the guy who wrote a poem for Newt
burnspbesq
@Corner Stone:
“And surprisingly, I plan to beat you, and others here, about the head and neck on this topic for some undetermined period of time.”
We quiver in fear.
RalfW
@Brachiator: The only sacred duty of the media now days is the same one as Wall Street: make money.
Ugly makes money. Citizens United has been the biggest boon to TV since broadcasting in living color.
Rommie
I’m thinking that Romney wins, but it’ll be hard for him to fire up his base because of his winning bona fides. Instead, it’ll all be riding on how much of his support really wants that NearBlahGuy out of the White House.
But Mittens is so unlikeable that I wonder if it counters the anger at having Obama as president. It would be like having Ben Nelson as the D candidate – yeah, he’s a Democrat, but the base would have the enthusiasm of a dried up sponge to get behind and support him.
And I, too, think it’ll get ugly this summer and fall.
chopper
@danimal:
i just don’t see any reasonable scenario where people get behind mitt with the kind of enthusiasm he needs to take the WH.
Kirk Spencer
@taylormattd:
You’re mistaken. It’s a common mistake.
Only primaries prior to the end of April have to be proportional. Roughly 1/3 of the declared delegates are assigned after that deadline, and most come from winner-take-all primaries. There are two additional points to keep in mind.
First, about 20% of the total delegates are undeclared; superdelegates. They can change their minds up to the convention.
Second, even the proportionality has a couple of limits. Most the states have floors. That is, the votes are distributed only among those who cross the minimum (10 to 15%). A few of the states have a limit on total distribution – top three in most cases.
Specific example: New Hampshire. The state had 12 delegates and a 10% floor. As a result Romney got 7, Paul got 3, and Huntsman got 2.
General Stuck
@Napoleon:
You are correct, though they did change the rules from 2008 to make ‘winner take all’ primaries in April, and the allocation method early on so a candidate like Mccain in 2008 sewed up the nom with winner take all in the early primary voting
Jay in Oregon
If any NotRomney had held the nation’s attention for more than a week (or not had large, nasty skeletons tumble of out their closet) I would have said there was a chance.
As it is, it’s been a circus sideshow and now it’s time for the main event. I would have hoped for the NotRomneys to draw some more blood before falling in line, but oh well.
GregB
Eagerly awaiting 10 months worth of punditry declaring that everything is good news for Mitt Romney.
amk
May be the fundies will recruit mike huckster ? He would surely beat the crap out of willard.
Raven
@Disco: Maybe after the election when he didn’t fight back and got his ass kicked but not before.
Joel
@Mnemosyne: I think it’s worth looking at the polls in context.
Obama is still leading Romney by a 1-2 point margin on average, and has been for a few weeks now: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elections/state/US/?chart=12USPresGERvO&chart_mode=new
Kevin K.
Four words: Mitt hires Mark Penn
burnspbesq
@RalfW:
Media outlets have been for-profit enterprises for as long as there have been media outlets. Please explain how Fox News is materially different from Horace Greeley’s New York Herald.
Ella in New Mexico
Mitty has to be at least a little bit shaky deep down inside knowing that almost 60% of the Republicans who have voted so far have voted for anyone else but him—No matter how loudly the Establishment screamed in their faces to get in line.
Sweet Jesus, I hope none of these starry-eyed dreamers drops out until the last primary drags them ALL through the sewer.
Suffern ACE
@chopper: Meh. It’s kind of like Samara noting that the Reps need 65% of the white vote to win. In 2020. But it’s not 2020 and who’s to say they won’t get that. They’re running out the people who promise 10% economic growth, low taxes, and nebulous “cuts” that are implied to refer to programs for the poor. The people who have jobs like that, just like they like their health insurance until they get sick.
“Obama’s economy is limited because he is in over his head – but I’m offering you an unlimited economy! Like we had under Reagan.” “Only a pessimist believes that we can’t have our cake and eat it too and take the cake from those who don’t deserve it.” It’s shameless and unrealistic, but it might get enough votes to declare a mandate.
The Dangerman
No, Romney will be the Man/Bot.
The only excitement will be who will be his running mate; Rubio is probably DQ as he lied his ass off about his Family history. So, who will it be…
…well, the choice will have to do 2 things:
1) Set someone up for 2016 as the next in line if Romney loses or 2020 if he (shudder) wins.;
2) Be an extra, super duper flavor of Wingnut.
My guess? Paul Ryan.
Jay in Oregon
@Southern Beale:
I was listening to Thom Hartmann and a Paulbot called in who tried to claim that Ron Paul definitely, totally would have gotten involved in World War II—after Paul’s own comments had come out about how getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII was a mistake, and that saving the Jews was none of our business.
burnspbesq
Someone’s not paying close enough attention to acronyms. Sen. Sanders’ attempt to legislatively overrule Citizens United is called the Saving American Democracy Act.
I can see the e-mail subject lines now: “help us pass the SAD Act.”
TOP123
@Yutsano: But who will make this point? The Catholic? The Catholic who actually converted to Catholicism?
Catholicism (in the appropriate Francoist flavour) is certainly appealing to many Cons, but Evangelicons are not amoung them.
FlipYrWhig
Romney’s big problem is that the idea of Romney is SO. MUCH. BETTER. than the reality of Romney. Like Giuliani in 2008, where the longer he spent somewhere the steeper his polling declined.
badpoetry
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but I thought it was thought provoking. Basically, it says that Mitt’s lead in terms of delegates is going to be modest going into super Tuesday, and by then, he should be down to only one not-Romney. And Romney loses pretty badly to a single not-Romney. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/01/am_i_all_wet.php
Kirk Spencer
@badpoetry: It’s flawed. See my earlier comment:
gogol's wife
@trollhattan:
Okay now I understand why they were calling Romney Zopilote yesterday.
ruemara
@Hill Dweller: Well, then y’all deserve what happens to you, don’t you? What is with this stupid pre-emptive surrender? God, between you ahd Gin & Tonic, we should just pull up the U-Haul to Pennsylvania Avenue, toss some clothes and books in boxes, tie Bo on the roof and graciously hand Romney the keys-instead of wasting any time, you know, working on electing Obama and a decent Congress.
wrb
@badpoetry:
Problem is Paul.
He’ll can’t win but will probably stick around, splitting the notmitts, handing the nomination to Willard.
If he wasn’t there, yea, Willard’s chances would be shaky for the reasons described.
The Dangerman
Expanding a bit on earlier comment…
….why Paul Ryan? His Medicare plan will be re-branded as the saving of Medicare from Obama’s cuts.
Edit: Yes, it’s would be a lie. See Kenyan Socialist, etc.
Svensker
@Fed Up In Brooklyn:
I don’t know. I got a buncha uber-liberals in my family who want to vote for Paul because “Obama is just as bad as Romney.”
Suffern ACE
@The Dangerman: Yep. The whole idea of not passing the doc fix is to get doctors complaining about those recent cuts.
RalfW
@burnspbesq: The difference, and I say this from being partnered with someone who worked in the newsroom of a major daily for 20 years, is that about 10 years ago, the top brass in the news room stopped being a journalist and started watching stock prices and potential for profit.
It used to be that media companies made money incredibly easily, and so felt editorially free to do the work of journalism, about witch to wrap the classifieds, or the shake-n-bake TeeVee ads. The money people and the content peole really used to be pretty separate. Not any more.
Now that media and advertising is segmented into tiny fractions, and the big networks and major dailies have had to slash news-gathering and replaced it with endless (literally cheap, as in low overhead/operating cost) punditry, the old notion (the sacred duty, as Southern Beale put it) that journalism is the 4th estate is kaput. Over. Not operable.
That, as I see it, is how the media landscape is different.
Alesis
@Comrade Mary: Whether or not they planned it that’s definitely the way it’s working out. Actually to only one who doesn’t seem to be in on the Romney coronation is Gingrich.
Most likely because he was personally offended by the way the media and the GOP establishment threw him directly under the bus the moment he became relevant.
He’s their own little Lieberman.
Frankensteinbeck
@Hal: and @Mnemosyne:
Yes. If you look at a list of all the polls, you have to cherry-pick to find any that Romney leads, and they’re within the margin of error. Obama leads, like, 9 out of 10.
At this point in the campaign, those are terrible numbers. The general voting public only knows that Romney is a ‘moderate’. They’ve seen a couple of brief shots of him on TV while they were ignoring already distorted coverage of the primaries. This is Romney’s moment, the best he can get.
When the primaries are over, he has to go on national TV and address regular voters. Repeatedly. He has to debate Obama, who humiliated the entire GOP congress in their Q&A session, and breezed through doing it. Romney is photogenic. He is not telegenic. Think of it like Perry. He was widely considered to be a strong player until we actually got to see him speak.
Irony Abounds
It really doesn’t require much thought to determine whether its Obama or Romney winning in November. If the unemployment rate continues to drop and is down to say 7.6% or so by September, Obama wins pretty easily. If the unemployment rate stays at 8.5% or goes up by then, Romney wins. If it is somewhere in between 7.6% and 8.5%, then you have to add the extra step of looking at the GDP numbers for the second quarter that come out at the end of July. If they look good, Obama wins, if not, Romney wins.
You can recreate my analysis at pullingnumbersoutofmyass.com.
Mnemosyne
@Joel:
Your link shows that 3 of the last 5 polls have Obama ahead, with the most recent ones having Obama ahead by 5 points (Ipsos/Reuters) or 3 points (Rasmussen). CBS is the only one to have Romney ahead, and it’s only by 2 points.
So, no, Romney doesn’t seem to be running ahead on average, either. The HuffPo’s chart shows that Romney’s never been ahead of Obama if you look at the average, though Romney came close in September.
virag
romney really really wants to find a way to placate paul so that he will deliver some of his dope-friend idiot followers to the mittens camp in the general election. keeping crackpot grandpa goldbug happy that long will be an almost impossible task and i have no idea right now how romney thinks he’s gonna pull it off.
burnspbesq
@RalfW:
That makes a certain amount of sense, although your theory doesn’t explain the Spanish-American War very well.
Kola Noscopy
Trolling.
handsmile
I’ve written several times already on this blog that Democrats retaining majority control of the Senate will be the greatest challenge of the 2012 national election cycle. With a GOP majority there, effectively dictating nominations to the Supreme Court, get used to the phrase “Justice John Yoo” or “Justice Janice Rogers Brown.”
Barring a domestic catastrophe, I believe President Obama will win reelection (even with all the inevitable nose-holding by the Christian and Tea Party radicals for the Mormon bankster). But the bracingly astute comments above by Hill Dweller #63, Southern Beale #67, and cmorenc #106 underscore what must be combatted to achieve that objective.
gogol’s wife (way back at #3): At the end of August, our host declared confidently that Rick Perry would be the GOP nominee. (I can find the thread if you insist, but hope you’ll take my word.)
Re Number Two (not a Santorum reference): Maybe Ryan, certainly not Jeb. Yes, Mittens must appease the Christian/Tea Party radicals, but I suspect it will be someone “outside the box,” as management consultants love to say. “A brave and bold choice” for the corporate media to scream and fawn over.
Joel
@Kola Noscopy: Well, at least you’re honest about it.
Yevgraf
@Svensker:
Yeah, I’m starting to hear that, too.
Thank you Jane Hamsher, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Dan Choi and the rest of the emoprog crew. If they succeed in crowning Romney, I could easily find myself making the pivot to right wing savagery against everything the emoprog whimperers hold sacred – from banning left wing speech to criminalizing gay acts to slashing environmental regs. I’m hitting 50 this year, can now swing my practice toward winger advocacy, and none of the social stuff actually affects me (plus, I’ll have the cash for illicit contraceptives and abortions for my kids abroad).
I might enjoy letting them see how “both sides are just as bad”.
gogol's wife
@handsmile:
Oh, okay, that long ago. I thought he meant recently. All of us were starry-eyed about Perry at one point, weren’t we? I was so sure he’d be the nominee that I couldn’t even bring myself to look at video of him.
Mnemosyne
@Frankensteinbeck:
Yep. Much as I loathed him, Bush could show a certain amount of fratboy charm, I suppose, if you like that kind of thing. Romney has no charm at all.
gaz
@Joel: x2.
Did the troll run out of gas or something? Did his dog die? It’s like he’s not even trying anymore, and that makes me a little sad inside.
I wonder what happened. =) heh
General Stuck
@Southern Beale:
It’s hard to “swift boat” an incumbent president. There is only his record that can be attacked as failed. Obama is free to swift boat Romney, but Romney ought to accomplish that his self without outside help.
The Moar You Know
@Kola Noscopy: We know.
wrb
@Yevgraf:
This
It is looking like it will be close enough that if the monsters win, the firebaggers and hoffpo will have provided the margin.
gogol's wife
@wrb:
My rage will cause a stroke, I just know it.
Valdivia
Ben Smith now getting started on the Romney pimping saying he is the most extraordinary candidate and that the field is weak because all the other real candidates (daniels etc) were scared of Mittbott. Really?
boy its going to be a long 10 months!
handsmile
@Irony Abounds: (#142)
I believe there are many front-pagers at that particular website.
Well played, sir or madam!
gogol's wife
@Valdivia:
Great analysis. Yeah, they were afraid of Mitt. How ridiculous.
gaz
@Svensker: In my neck of the woods – every single marginally politically aware Paul supporter I know (and I use the term aware loosely and relatively – see below) is a LIBERAL pauler. been that way around here, in my experience since 2008, as far as I remember. So none of this is new to me. I consider him to be another Lyndon LaRouche (particular political views notwithstanding – more speaking about the overall shtick)
OTOH, some of my politically clueless family has been tinkering with the idea of jumping on the Paul bandwagon.
My sister said to me the other day “What about that guy from the ummm… Liberal Party?”. I basically (withholding the urge to throttle her) responded with “What? Are you talking about Canada or something?… OOoooh. You mean *Libertarian*? Girl, Ron Paul is a racist and a nutter. Promise me you won’t support him until you at least read one of the Ron Paul Survival Guide newsletters”
Some people make me want to scream.
I wanted to choke her. Adding: Yes I know Ron Paul is an “R” not officially Libertarian, but sometimes you have to pick the bullshit that is addressed, or be overwhelmed by the avalanche of dumbstupid.
The Moar You Know
@Yevgraf: I hear you. It would frankly be in my own best interests to do the same, given what I do for a living.
Nader’s “Gore is as bad as Bush” meme will poison the political discourse in this country for decades to come, and will never do anything but benefit Republicans.
Valdivia
@gogol’s wife:
I can see it now, in the Village’s eyes Mitt will be the best candidate in the history of the Republic!
Cacti
Unless Gnewt or Frothy drops out, they’ll keep splitting the evangelical vote, and Romney will cruise.
Romney has always had a glass jaw as the GOP favorite, but no credible opponents among his competition. I think Huckabee’s probably kicking himself in the ass right about now.
Keith G
@eemom #85 I wish you were right, but your’re not. This will be close.
@hal #15 Which sites?
for the right wing , obama hate will trump mormon hate. Do not doubt this.
Kola Noscopy
Weird. BJ’s become primarily a bunch of Obots telling themselves pleasing tribal stories, as Somerby might say.
Oh well.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@burnspbesq:
In Horace Greeley’s day, the press was rabidly partisan from all sides, and was expected to be that way.
Today we have the same news model on the Right, but no mainstream counterpart to Fox on the Left. Instead what in a better world might serve as a mainstream press on the Left is still worshipping false idols at the altar of “Objective Journalism”, an oddball artifact of the (as it turns out historically anomolous) culture of the 1950s and 60s which passed its Sell-By-Date a couple of decades ago but which is still hanging around thanks to the Totebaggers.
Go Left young man!
AlladinsLamp
A live boy, a dead woman, or a second wife.
Mnemosyne
@Cacti:
Not with the ghosts of those four Seattle cops hanging over him like Banquo. There is no way, no how Huckabee could get through a primary with that baggage, much less the general election, and he knows it. And that’s even before you throw in the parolee who raped and murdered two women after Huckabee let him out and Huck’s son’s history of torturing and killing dogs.
Cacti
@eemom:
I also think Obama wins handily. If unemployment continues to drop up until the election, it will be a blowout.
Too many States for Willard to flip.
Keith G
@svensker #137 They are feeling let down. That is natural. Your job is to get them to refocus and help bring them back home.
Cacti
To put it another way, even with all the McCain states, plus flipping Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Indiana…
Willard still loses 272 to 266.
Mnemosyne
@Irony Abounds:
Meh, I don’t really trust that unemployment “statistic.” It seems like cherry-picking to me given how small the pool is that it draws from is. Are we talking post-FDR? Post-Reagan?
replicnt6
@Hal:
Jim DeMint. You heard it here first. He needs a certified whack-job. Helps in the South. Perhaps an informal deal to get DeMint’s support in the primary. Tea Party cred.
Roger Moore
@Irony Abounds:
One interesting piece Nate Silver did was looking at the best economic predictors for the presidential election. What he found was that change in unemployment was a much better predictor of success than absolute unemployment was. So as long as the economy keeps getting better, Obama’s chances look pretty good even though it would take a miracle for the economy to be good in an absolute sense by November. If unemployment is actually down to 7.6% by the end of September, which would be pretty robust job growth, the election is likely to be a cakewalk for Obama.
dogwood
@Mnemosyne:
I’d say Mitt is traditionally handsome, fairly photogenic, but extremely untelegenic. But what difference does it make in the long run? His opponent has already wrapped up the gold medal in the Being Photogenic and Telegenic while Presidentin’ competition.
Judas Escargot
@Yutsano:
Damn, I never realized that. Stealth bishop, at that.
Wasn’t there some liberal Dem in the House some years ago who happened to be a Catholic priest, and was kind of forced out because of it?
(This, totally from memory, so I don’t even know what to Google).
ETA: “priest democrat congress” gets me to Robert Drinan of Massachusetts, ordered to resign by JP2 in 1980. No wonder the memory was so hazy.
Triassic Sands
I wonder if Republicans are finally suffering from “Surging Leader Fatigue?” It’s exhausting watching one clown after another jump into a momentary lead only to be brought down by the reality of who they are.
Still, the reality of who Mitt Romney is isn’t any better that the others, it’s just different — a lot squishier.
If I had one wish now, it would be that Newt would completely lose it at the next debate and physically wipe that hideous smirk off Romney’s face. Ordinarily, I’m not in favor of violence, but in this case I’d cheer if all five or six of the remaining clowns (or however many are allowed to debate) got into a chair-throwing melee in S. Carolina. They could hold the post-debate interviews at the ER.
Who would win such a brawl?
Emma
@Yevgraf: I am getting that way too. I swear to Jeebus if Romney wins because of the uber-leftists, I will laugh at each scream of pain.
It really feels strange to feel so bloodyminded.
Hill Dweller
@Valdivia:
As I was saying earlier in the thread, the media, not just Republican politicians/cable-radio hosts, actual purported journalists have rallied around Willard in the last day or so. I thought Tom “Polonius of the Corn Palace” Brokaw was going to start drooling when singing Romney’s praises last night.
The Bain attacks from the right and the ‘I like firing people’ gaffe scared the power players in the Republican. They’re quickly moving to shut it down. I suspect the calls went out to their shills in the media/government yesterday, and they’ve all subsequently gotten in line.
When DeMint starts complimenting Willard, you know the fix is in.
Schlemizel
There needed to be only one, two at most, non-mitts so that the hate could all flow to one place. Had The GinGrinch finished ahead of ol frothy in Iowa it would have helped a lot. Peryy was nobody & Huntsman was never going anywhere after NH anyway. That would have left Willard & two non-mitts. Paul would have gotten about the same numbers but noot would have finished very close & may have parlayed that into relevance. Short of a disaster in both SC & FL its over now. Even if the worst should happen for WIllard now he is pretty much unstoppable.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Valdivia:
Wow. That’s some hard-core fantasy there. And this from the virtual rag that decides what “people in Washington are saying”. That’s gotta be the stupidest piece of non-Halperin punditry since…. Richard Cohen declared himself funny? Juan Williams compared Michelle Obama to Stokely Carmichael? Mika Brezcinski tried to express a thought?
phoebes-in-santa fe
@ruemara: I agree with you fully, but Hilldweller is correct in saying that the American electorate is very, very dimwitted. You’d think that all the Dems would have to say is “Why would you even consider putting the party back into office who caused this financial disaster to begin with?”
As a lifelong Dem, I will say that we are very, very bad at messaging. I mean, the ads SHOULD just write themselves…
Brachiator
@handsmile:
Not gonna happen. The Senate can hold up confirmations, but they cannot dictate the selection.
This again, is why Democrats need to make sure that Obma gets re-elected. A President Romney’s Supreme Court picks would be … I don’t even want to think about it.
But you are right that if the Democrats lose control of the Senate, Obama will be severely constrained in getting things done. So, the Democrats have to be looking at 2012, the 2014 midterms and 2016.
@RalfW:
There is a great deal of truth to this. The InterTubes, Craiglist, etc., has undercut the old model and the new models are not nearly as lucrative.
Conflicts between editorial and business exploded big time in the 90s at the LA Times, for example.
Ironically, the rise of a broad, literate working and middle class, for a short time, shifted newspapers away from being just rags for the ruling class. The fragmentation of reader markets, and the evaporation of revenues, seems to be pushing media companies back into the wrong direction.
Frankensteinbeck
@gaz:
Ron Paul’s role in the world is to make libertarians vote Republican. He may or may not know that, and I don’t care. He’s the face that lets them vote for destroying the social safety net while convincing themselves they’re voting to legalize pot.
Judas Escargot
@Yevgraf:
I confess to having the same (metaphorical) little demon voices in my head. Hey, if the little turnips want to vote themselves into poverty and extinction, who am I to stop them?.
Then, I remember: what happens to them, happens to me.
Frankensteinbeck
@Judas Escargot:
It would never change their mind, anyway. Haven’t you watched them here? It doesn’t matter how bad the other side is. All they have to do is pretend that the Democrats are just as bad. It’s fantastically easy to take something out of context, make a reference to rich people being powerful, and spin a conspiracy theory. The facts do not and will never make a difference for that narrative, and they’ll assure you on the headsman’s block that Obama was just making educating women a capitol crime more subtly.
Corner Stone
@Yevgraf:
Pretty stunning admission on your part. I mean, it’s not really stunning on your specific part, but still. Pretty fucking stupid.
It never ceases to amuse me. I fucking dare you, walk into any oil change place, restaurant, grocery store, or other place people sit around waiting. Mention any of these names to them and ask their opinion. They might, might, know who DK is at about 5% response rate but that would be the tops. All of the rest will get you a blank look and a , “Huh?”.
I mean, Dan Choi for fucking God’s sake?
More people know about the sausage races in Milwaukee during baseball season than know any one of your Murderer’s Row.
Judas Escargot
@Roger Moore:
I read that as ‘predators’ the first time through. Very funny, my-subconscious.
Sad thing is, my initial misreading didn’t change your point one bit.
Hill Dweller
@gaz: Ron Paul actually stood on stage last night and said inflation is our biggest problem. He is fucking clueless.
Anyone that votes for him because he wants to legalize marijuana and espouses isolationism is just as clueless. Even if by some bizarre turn of events Paul actually became President, there is no way in hell either of those policies would get implemented. Then you’re just left with his crackpot anti-government screeds/policies, which also won’t be implemented.
As an aside, Jon Stewart even sang his praises a couple of times this week. Sure, he expressed some reservations about the newsletters last night, but it looked cursory, at best.
We’ve completely lost the plot.
FlipYrWhig
@Emma: There aren’t enough “Obama isn’t liberal enough so I’m not voting” people out there to make that happen. They’re just disproportionately represented in the blogosphere. Like libertarians.
wrb
@FlipYrWhig:
The margin in 2000 was slim
Schlemizel
@Hill Dweller:
Only disagree with you on one point. A President PAul would get a lot of anti-government things done. That plays right in to the GOP desire to destroy the country, create chaos and a climate where the 1% can further extend this gilded age. EPA? HHS? DoE? dead! But I bet – if he had the guts to veto the defense bill (he wouldn’t) – he would be overridden. And pot? HA! you have to be smoking a lot of it to believe that would ever get near a vote.
Roger Moore
@Hill Dweller:
I don’t think he’s clueless. He knows damn well that inflation isn’t a serious economic problem. He just knows which side his bread is buttered on and is willing to implement terrible policy if it profits him personally. He’s solidly on the evil side of the evil/stupid axis.
FlipYrWhig
@Hill Dweller: Stewart and Colbert both did bits on indefinite detention that were along Greenwaldian lines. It rankled me a bit. But I’m just not much of a “civil libertarian,” I guess, and maybe they are. More germane, most likely, is that Stewart in particular is prone to falling for politicians he finds authentic and uncensored, as for example his long-running romance with one John McCain.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@FlipYrWhig: If it weren’t for 2000, I’d agree with you. And since 2000, we’ve got Citizens United and the War on non-existent voter fraud.
OTOH, Mitt Romney seems desperate to lull me into a false sense of complacency by being a relentlessly tone deaf, ham-fisted politician, really one of the worst I’ve ever seen
FlipYrWhig
@wrb: Yeah, but when it’s that slim it’s not at all obvious that the “disaffected liberal purist” bloc is any more decisive than the “uninformed dickwad” bloc.
Gin & Tonic
@ruemara: Olympic long jump record for you, getting from “better than even chance” of Mitt being elected to having me hand Mitt the keys to the WH. I know it will take money and work, both of which I am prepared to contribute. Seems half the posters here, though, think this is a complete no-contest. Ask Senator Martha Coakley about how that works out.
Mitt gets at least 55 million votes for free. He’ll have to work for 7 million more, but there’s no way that is impossible. If we stay home because “Hey, Obama’s got this” then it becomes easy.
wrb
@FlipYrWhig:
When it is that slim you need both. Lose one and the outcome changes. Thus, decisive.
handsmile
@Brachiator: (#183)
If Chuck Grassley becomes chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, then Obama’s latitude in selecting Supreme Court nominees (and of course all other judicial vacancies) will be so severely constrained that a Justice Yoo or Brown is far from inconceivable. The need to obtain committee approval goes some way towards explaining why Harold Koh, for example, is not sitting on the court. Thus, a GOP majority in the Senate does, in effect, dictate nominations.
Certainly we both shudder at considering what legal troglodytes a President Mittens would nominate to the Court. But here too I believe that a Judiciary Committee headed by Patrick Leahy could forestall some of the more outrageous candidates. (Admittedly, a Romney presidency and a Democratic senate would be most improbable.)
As you wrote, “This…is why Democrats need to make sure that Obama gets re-elected.” Yes indeed; with titanium coattails!
Gin & Tonic
@Judas Escargot: I lived for a time in Congressman Drinan’s district. He was a shining counterexample to the Bernard Law strain of Boston Catholicism. Those Jesuits can still amaze you from time to time.
The equanimity with which he sucked down JPII’s order and went on to other work was truly remarkable.
Yevgraf
@Corner Stone:
They may not know the names, but they sure know the message. Last night, my solidly liberal daughters were pretty well calling me an “excuse all the depredations of Obama” O-Bot, using every meme I’ve seen handed out by the emoprogs at Kos, and saying that some vague and unnamed, unknown progressive should surely do better, and that compromises that one has to make in governing are no excuse.
I nearly grounded them, they were so strident, plus, they had all of Calamity Jane and Glengarry Glen Greenwald’s talking points on national security issues and Wall Street memorized.
gogol's wife
@Yevgraf:
You are absolutely right. They’ve made it so it isn’t “cool” for people who identify as liberal of lefty to like Obama. It makes me sick, it’s so destructive.
How old are your daughters, if you can ground them?
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Yevgraf:
Sounds like a fine time for some home-schooled research and writing assignments. Write me a 5-10 page single spaced essay regarding liberal disenchanment with an incumbent Democratic President and the electoral, policy and human consequences which followed. Pick two out of the three following elections: 1968, 1980, or 2000.
Hill Dweller
@FlipYrWhig: I don’t really mind Colbert and Stewart hitting Obama for signing the defense authorization bill, but I do wish they would give it some context.
Svensker
@Hill Dweller:
With the folks I know, the “legalize pot” thing has nothing to do with it. The “stop the Drug War” does — with good reason, since the Drug War is stupid, counterproductive and horrible. Also, too, the “don’t bail out the bankers” appeals. But mostly the “don’t bomb Iran” thing is the biggest appeal right now.
I don’t think the latter concern is particularly nutty, given the bellicosity coming out of the Israel-firsters as well as the mounting threats coming out of our own White House. I’m praying Obama is just jollying those fuckers along but it’s getting pretty scary.
I keep telling my Paul-tard friends that a vote for Paul is a vote for Romney which is a vote for bombing Iran. They believe that Obama will allow Israel to push us into war with Iran — I felt pretty strongly a month ago that he wouldn’t but I’m not feeling so confident these days. Praying hard, though.
Hill Dweller
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I can’t believe they’re going this route. Even Frank Luntz is out there warning Republicans not to overtly defend capitalism, but the Willard camp has decided to not just defend it, but accuse its critics of jealousy/envy. It makes no sense to me.
Emma
@FlipYrWhig: I hang on to that thoughtlike a medieval monk to his relics. Or, in a more modern expression, from your mouth to God’s ear.
Keith G
yev and emma no need to worry. Those others will not sink obama. The president has a winning message. The game is his to win or lose. If he put together the right team with the right strategy he will do okay, but it will be close. I just hope he will be relentless enough . Again this baby is his to win or lose
eemom
@handsmile:
I think you overestimate the importance of the Senate Judiciary Committee to the confirmation process. You need to remember that there’s a presumption in favor of approving the president’s choice — which is why purity troll Russ Feingold voted aye for Roberts.
Yes, I know the republicans are stalling Obama’s other fed court appointments, but they won’t be able to get away with that for long with a Supreme Court justice, just as they could not with Sotomayor and Kagan.
Cassidy
@The Moar You Know: Short answer? No.
FollowtheDough
Anyone here who thinks the election is going to be easy better brush up reading Greg Palast or Brad Friedman. The only way the republicans win is by suppressing the vote,cheating and distractions.
And it is the only way they do win & will win in the future. The media will be complicit in not talking about the lost votes due to theft or “election irregularities” The republicans will continue to be a “tour de force” and “Stunning upset” are headlines we should get use to in upcoming elections.
Hill Dweller
@Svensker: I actually share all those concerns. The drug war is stupid; the bailouts sucked(although I’ve yet to see a viable alternative); and I’d prefer we not bomb/go to war with Iran.
Even if he became President, Paul would never actually accomplish any of that stuff. The very powerful forces(which the vast majority of this country underestimates) that attempt to pull a President towards their policy objectives would eat him alive.
If Obama could implement his ideal policies, without any obstructions, I suspect the country would look completely different. That just isn’t the reality he(or any President) faces.
Corner Stone
@Yevgraf:
Maybe that should give you and others pause.
I just don’t know how this motley crew of no-names and low traffic can contend with the actions and messaging of a full throated WH in campaign mode.
Just makes you sound ridiculous.
Brachiator
@handsmile:
Again, this constrains the president in terms of getting a nominee confirmed. I have no concerns that the GOP is going to dictate the choice. None.
I think a president has a right to nominate the candidates he or she wants (within reason). So I want the best president elected. I don’t want to have to depend on the Senate as a backstop. This is how we got Roberts, Scalia, Thomas on the bench.
@Svensker:
I could see Israel going against Iran alone far more than I could see Israel pushing the US into a war. The relations between Obama and Netanyahu are just too frosty for Israeli hardliners to be confident of a supportive US response.
Heck, I don’t even think that Israel could count on a Republican president backing a unilateral strike by Israel against Iran. The GOP candidates are talking a lot of bellicose trash, but I hope that even these dopes don’t believe that another war in the region would be a breeze.
Perry, by the way, seems like a totally hopeless dope.
ETA: concurring opinion to eemom’s observation that even the GOP boneheads show some deference when it comes to the Supremes.
NCSteve
Romney needs 1144 delegates. He has 20. Just sayin’.
Brachiator
Speaking of the Supremes
WTF?
handsmile
@eemom: (#212)
Well, isn’t that just like you: being a Pollyanna about what the Rethugs will do once in power! :)
Of course, presumption is honored by well-behaved Democrats such as Russ Feingold when it comes to the Supreme Court nominee of a Republican president. And the successful nominations of both Sotomayor and Kagan occurred while Obama was in the White House and Democrats held a Senate majority. After what we have witnessed by GOP radicals in the House for the past year, I have little doubt of the wreckage they will inflict if both chambers of Congress are under their control.
You may well be right about my (over)concern. Most certainly we agree that it is a scenario that we will work ferociously to prevent.
slightly-peeved
There’s going to be 10 months for Obama to articulate what he wants from a second term, and whatb he’s done in this one. Gore wasn’t an incumbent, he came in with lower liberal enthusiasm, and while I think he’s a great guy doing important work he’s not one-tenth the political campaigner Obama is. Also remember that Bush campaigned as a compassionate conservative while Romney will be campaigning as Lord snooty of Snootington Hall.
Kola Noscopy
@Yevgraf:
True colors.
Mnemosyne
@Brachiator:
If that’s the case I’m thinking of, the dispute was over whether a teacher at the associated school counts as a religious employee or a secular employee. Did they make a ruling on that particular employee?
Obviously, the government can’t tell the Catholic Church that they’re discriminating against a priest if they boot him out for being gay what with the First Amendment and all, but there is a weird gray line when it comes to people who work for the church but aren’t obviously “religious employees” like clergy are.
wrb
@Corner Stone:
You denial of the obvious makes you sound both ridiculous and defensive.
You over-strain on this issue. You won’t convince.
Yevgraf
@Kola Noscopy:
Nope – economic survival, undertaken while enjoying a heaping helping of schadenfreudeliciousness.
Imagine a wingtip, kicking a firebagger in the kidneys, forever.
Kola Noscopy
@Yevgraf:
Good to know there is SOME sanity in the family. Horrified to know you have reproduced.
Can’t imagine where the stridency genes came from, but the authoritarian urge to ground them is par for you.
Brachiator
@Mnemosyne:
Kola Noscopy
@gogol’s wife:
Or it could be that Obama’s actions or lack of them uncool to be an Obot. Hmmm…
Corner Stone
@wrb: The obviousness of what?
You’re a fool if you think Jane bleeding Hamsher cost the Democrats the 2010 election, or could in any way stop Obama from being re-elected.
The fact that you continue to want to blame Hamsher and Ed Schultz just exposes how cartoonish your thinking is.
Ed has a couple hundred thousand viewers nationwide. Hamsher has a website ranked in the 20K’s by traffic.
There are 110M+ eligible federal voters who actually cast votes for president.
It’s like me standing outside a neighborhood dry cleaner’s ringing a bell and complaining about the mayor of Houston.
You’re a fucking cartoon.
wrb
@Corner Stone:
Doubling down on the ridiculous and defensive?
You sound so desperate.
“When in a hole stop…”
Corner Stone
@wrb: I hope you pack your pillow with plenty of garlic, and your orifices with some good solid wax every night before bedtime.
That way the eeeebil emoprogs can’t slip their essence inside you and convince you to note vote in 2012.
Kola Noscopy
@Corner Stone:
ew. but lol.
wrb
@Corner Stone:
Ick, I should have guessed your method would be something like that.
Mnemosyne
@Brachiator:
Yep, that’s the case I was thinking of. She was definitely in that gray area since she was specially trained to teach the religion, so the church she worked for was able to argue that she was essentially a clergy member so therefore the First Amendment prevents the government from interfering.
A pretty crappy case all around, IMO, but I’m not sure how else the Supremes were supposed to decide it since she did have that special ministerial training.
Chuck Butcher
I don’t know, 3/5 of the electorate involved in NH(!) didn’t support Mittens. Keep in mind that the election in NH involves a load of (I)s in a GOP contest means something. How this plays out in the face of who the ABMs are, I have no idea.
Brachiator
@Mnemosyne:
Yeah. It was a unanimous decision, so it appears that there was not much of a disagreement over the core issue. Too tired today to read the opinions, so I don’t know if there is any big differences carved out by any of the justices.
However, conservatives who like to rail about an activist librul court are going to have to settle for the standard Obama bashing:
Justice Kagan joined in the concurrence written by Justice Alito.
Rome Again
@Violet:
Ron Paul will be 145* by the time that happens. He’ll be too old.
*I exaggerate for desired effect, but not by much!
Rome Again
John, Free Republic is still Anti-Romney and many of them state they simply cannot and will not vote for him at all.
Brachiator
@Rome Again:
So, what are they going to do? Sit on their hands? Try to push for a third party candidate?
I guess it might be interesting to see whether GOP primary turnout is down, but even this might not be a reliable measure of shyness towards Mitt by some Republicans.
Rome Again
@NCSteve:
Gee, only 1124 to go. :P
Rome Again
@Brachiator:
Right now they are hoping Newt does a lot of damage and Santorum picks up enough votes in the south to pummel Romney. Fun to watch!
Rome Again
Oh, and CNN just broke their own eligibility rules for the debate to allow Perry to get in.
xian
@Hal: why not Sanctimoron, to appease the fundies?
Rome Again
@FollowtheDough:
You mean like this?
Keith G
How many divisions does The Free Republic have?
Not enough. And they will vote for him in the general.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
The only way at this point is if Gingrich or Perry are pulling the ol’ rope-a-dope, string Romney along while all the other pretenders fall out and then hit him hard when they’re the last non-Mormon option left.
And don’t underestimate the fundies torpedoing the Romney campaign in November. They sat on their hands for Poppy Bush and Dole, they’ll do the same for Mittens if they have to.