It keeps you running

One reason that Newt might stick around a while is that his wing of the party (rural, right-wing) is more enthused about him than Romney’s wing of the party (more urban, not as right-wing) is about Romney. Political scientist Michael P. McDonald:

In (Florida) counties where Gingrich did better, Republican turnout was up over 2008. In counties where Romney dominated, turnout was lower.

[….]

Romney draws his strength from urban counties and Gingrich draws his from rural counties. The suburbs appear to the the battleground region with Romney winning suburbia in two of the three truly contested races so far.

The Florida turnout pattern was also evident in Iowa and South Carolina. Turnout was at least on par with 2008, if not higher, in Iowa and South Carolina because these states have more rural voters that were excited to vote for someone other than Romney.

I don’t buy into the idea that the Republican base won’t turn out for Romney in November. Roger Ailes and the rest will get these nuts riled up about ACORN and soshulism and the rest. But this data is interesting nevertheless.






119 replies
  1. 1
    burnspbesq says:

    I may be the only person on earth who thinks that song is the best thing the Doobie Brothers ever did.

    I doubt I am the only person on earth who can’t get even the least bit excited about the race for the Republican nomination.

  2. 2
    beltane says:

    This means that Mitt Romney will have to choose a running mate somewhere to the right of Sarah Palin in order to make these folks really love him. I hear Glenn Beck is available.

  3. 3
    burnspbesq says:

    To the right of Sarah Palin lies nothing but the abyss. Madness takes its toll.

  4. 4
    Gin & Tonic says:

    Shouldn’t you of all people know that “data” is plural?

    /pedant

  5. 5
    burnspbesq says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    I’m totally on your side on this issue, but you have to admit, “these data are” looks funny on the page.

  6. 6
    DougJarvus Green-Ellis says:

    @burnspbesq:

    It’s astounding, time is fleeting.

  7. 7
    eemom says:

    I don’t buy into the idea that the Republican base won’t turn out for Romney in November.

    With all due respect, I am so VERY tired of you and various concern trolls’ continual insistence that no matter how deep of a hole the republicans dig themselves with this unprecedented parade of fuckery, ALL the old tried and true tropes — the base ALWAYS turns out, the president ALWAYS gets blamed, etc. etc. — are going to be as inevitable as the fucking Laws of Physics come November.

    This attitude is bullshit, it’s tiresome, and it serves no fucking purpose whatsoever other than titillating those who get off on wallowing in misery.

    Will some republicans grudgingly turn out no matter what? Sure. But the motherfuckers themselves know, and I’ve heard them admit, that many of the hard core ‘tards will NOT. The level of hatred these people have for Romney is unprecedented amongst the base of any presidential candidate I can think of, and certainly not any who WON.

    Lighten the fuck up.

  8. 8
    Jebediah says:

    @burnspbesq:

    I may be the only person on earth who thinks that song is the best thing the Doobie Brothers ever did.

    Doobie Brothers? Ack, you youngsters, with your rock and your roll… it’s also a part of a line in a Son Volt song that is now bouncing around in my head…

  9. 9
    Joeyess says:

    The Evangelical vote will be extremely depressed. And hasn’t even mentioned magic underwear yet.

  10. 10
    burnspbesq says:

    @DougJarvus Green-Ellis:

    Has the blackness hit you? Are you drinking the moment?

  11. 11
    DougJarvus Green-Ellis says:

    @eemom:

    I say over and over again that I think Obama will win. Just not because of a deflated base.

    He’ll win because Republicans have alienated Latinos and because Romney is not as good with independents as Republicans initially thought.

    You really think the teahadists will stay home?

  12. 12
    eemom says:

    Also too: “enthused” isn’t a WORD.

  13. 13
    Steve says:

    Talk about the base not showing up is mostly a bunch of hooey. The base shows up. That’s why it’s the base. The reason you keep hearing this sort of talk is because of the power of narrative.

    Countless people believe that the 2010 election happened because the fickle Democratic base abandoned Obama. But Democratic turnout was perfectly normal for a midterm.

    Likewise, there’s very little evidence that Bush I lost in 1992 because the base abandoned him. That’s a story that got told because conservatives wanted to scare future presidents into holding the line on taxes. The facts don’t really back it up, but once again the narrative triumphed.

    I don’t claim to know what will happen in 2012, but I find it fairly implausible that conservative Republicans, the sort of people who believe Barack Obama literally hates this country and wants to destroy it, are going to stay at home because they find Mitt Romney too wishy-washy. I’ll believe it when I see it.

  14. 14
    scav says:

    @eemom:
    Seriously. English? English on the Internet? snort :)

  15. 15
    Joeyess says:

    Insert “Newt” between “And & hasn’t” in my post above.

  16. 16
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @burnspbesq: I have to admit no such thing.

  17. 17
    Waldo says:

    I think it will be a problem for Romney. He’s going to have to borrow Newt’s dog whistle to get the goobers to turn out in November. Doing that without alienating a significant chunk of independent voters will require a measure of finesse we’ve yet to witness from Mittens.

  18. 18
    WaterGirl says:

    We are kind of in uncharted territory and no one can be sure whether the republicans will turn out for Romney even if they hate him, or if they will stay home.

    But we have to be prepared for them to turn out, even for Romney, just in case. We cannot afford to be wrong. If they do turn out and we don’t expect them to, we are completely screwed. If they don’t turn out and we win by a landslide, that’s just the icing on the cake.

  19. 19
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @eemom:

    it serves no fucking purpose whatsoever

    Wrong. It helps to keep reminding people that in order to win an election, you have to motivate your side to show up, not just count on the other side to not show up. Ask Senator Martha Coakley or the Mass. Democratic Party about this.

  20. 20
    General Stuck says:

    Romney’s “not concerned with the poor’ remark is only the beginning of this pandering hollow shell of a human being, showing his true colors. That among other things, he is a lousy politician, and is where he is due to wingnuts liking their candidates to be experienced at running for president. Along with a shit pile of cash. Most of the base would turn out to vote for the guy, but they won’t be happy about it, and many won’t do much more than vote for him.

    Not to mention his negatives on favorability have shot up to well over 50 percent just from minor bit of tweaking by Gingrich and the others.

    Newt and Santorum would be foolish not to stick around for the real chance the base will bolt from the guy. And he will not do all that well with evangelicals, as anyone who has grown up in the bible belt will tell you.

    Mitt Romney, imo, is a total disaster of a GOP candidate, and each day that will become more evident to not only republicans, but more importantly to independent voters. Whose recent steep drop of unfavorables has led the tail spin that is the Romney campaign.

    I think he has had to posture so far to the right, that it will be laughable to now try and tack to the center for a GE. He is winning on lots of Ben Franklins, and the damaged goods that represent his primary opponents. That won’t last for ever, but may until he gets enough delegates. I think not.

  21. 21
    TG Chicago says:

    @Jebediah: It was clearly a reference to the Doobie Brothers, though. Note the name of the political scientist.

    I dug it.

  22. 22
    Cargo says:

    the 27% will vote for a ham sandwich if it’s a Republican. They like Gingrich now, but in nine months they’ll crawl over broken glass to vote for Romney. WIthout a doubt. But that doesn’t get you to 270 electoral votes.

    The squishy middle will probably shrug their shoulders and vote for Obama, especially if this Republican shitshow goes on for a few more months and if the economy’s doing a little better.

    This is going to look more like Clinton v Dole.

    Unless the Republicans pull out something big to TRULY sabotage the country, like a debt default. Or if Israel attacks Iran and it’s WW3. Or if Europe collapses and brings our shaky recovery down with it. Or some kind of nonlinear event. Then all bets are off.

  23. 23
    Jennifer says:

    The problem with this analysis is that turnout wasn’t all that great in Iowa – it was about equal to turnout in 2008, and the 2008 Iowa GOP turnout was low compared to 2000.

    South Carolina turnout increased from about 450,000 to 600,000 this year, but with a states’ rights advocate (Ron Paul), a smarmy faux religionist (Santorum) and an open race-baiter (Gingrich) that should have come as a surprise to exactly no one. Expect to see high turnouts in the other former states of the Confederacy if Newt’s still in the race; otherwise, expect the trend of depressed turnout (equal or less than the low turnout of 2008) to continue.

  24. 24
    Cargo says:

    Let’s not forget it was a nonlinear event (the Lehman bros. collapse, TARP, etc) that put Obama in the white house to begin with, as he seemed competent to deal with it compared to Gramps and YouBetcha. Before September it was a real tossup.

  25. 25
    Left Coast Tom says:

    Newtie is a candidate with a single ‘sugar-daddy’ – a Las Vegas casino owner. As long as his sugar daddy is in it, Newtie is in it. When his sugar daddy gets tired of the whole thing, Newtie’s gone.

  26. 26
    Mark B. says:

    I suspect we’ll see a lot of T- partiers holding their noses in November. However, since they believe that Obama is an existential threat to the America the way they remember it*, they’ll be at the polls with clothespins on their noses.

    *When those people knew their place and weren’t all uppity like that dude in the white house.

  27. 27
    Mark B. says:

    Stoopid iPad. Sorry for the dubblepost.

  28. 28
    Waldo says:

    Also too, what if Newt runs as an independent?

  29. 29
    Jebediah says:

    @TG Chicago:
    Oh, certainly – but I saw the title and started hearing Jay Farrar before I read any of the post. And my knowledge of the Doobie Brothers is so superficial that I still might have missed it.
    I saw a recent concert of theirs on the TV. They sounded OK doing old material but the new stuff… sounded very generic and blah to me. No real spark or soul in it.

  30. 30
    Mike in NC says:

    @Cargo:

    This is going to look more like Clinton v Dole.

    Yup. Moreover, Willard will be assigned a VP running mate that the GOP will hope offsets his cultish Mormonism and appeals to the hard right Christianists. Mike Huckabee? Michelle Bachmann? Good luck winning over independents with that.

  31. 31
    amk says:

    @Mark B.:

    teabaggers=holding nose . Goes with the territory.

  32. 32
    Martin says:

    @DougJarvus Green-Ellis:

    You really think the teahadists will stay home?

    Yeah. Watch – they’ll turn against the GOP. When they don’t get their candidate, when they don’t get a serious shot at the White House, when the get a near-billionaire who says he’s not concerned about poor people, who won’t call Obama a nigger, and all that stuff – they’re turn against the GOP as the problem. They’ll go full PUMA.

    The real teahadists will vote libertarian or constitution party, and some will just be disgusted and stay home. Turnout problems in the primaries are indicative of turnout problems in the general. Rachel Maddow addressed this in her show. They don’t usually get more enthusiastic for the general. Yeah, the non-Romney voters will mostly rally around Romney, but the non-primary voters won’t suddenly engage around a candidate they weren’t interested in engaging with in the primaries. The energy behind Obama came during the primaries. It needs to be coming to the GOP candidates soon, because it won’t come after unless there’s some kind of surprise – and I wouldn’t bet on that happening.

    GOP turnout so far is below 2008 – except in the one race that Newt won. If Newt wins, the teahadists will turn out, and the independents will all vote Obama. If Romney wins, the teahadists will somewhat stay home, the independents may go somewhat for Romney, and the race will hinge on Obama turning out the vote, which I wouldn’t bet against. The GOP is fucked either way.

  33. 33
    shortstop says:

    Are most Republican voters motivated more by hatred for us or by enthusiasm for their own policies?

    Right.

  34. 34
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @Gin & Tonic: So are milk, wheat, and gas.

  35. 35
    Tom Q says:

    @Cargo: I don’t accept that it was a tossup till Lehman. The polls had flipped very briefly toward McCain, as they ALWAYS do after the trailing party’s convention, but they had already, before the crash, returned to showing Obama with the lead he’d had basically all year long.

    I’m just not a believer in “the last shiny object will swing the election”, though that of course is the favored position of all in the media. Lichtman’s Keys to the Presidency system, which takes a “preponderance of the evidence” approach to national elections, had come to the clear conclusion early in ’08 that, based on the disastrous second Bush term, whoever won the Dem nomination was going to be elected. His system also says Obama will win easily this year, because his term has been vastly more successful on the major metrics than anyone in DC gives him credit for. (And, lest you think he’s just a Dem-booster, his system also said Bush I would win in ’88, while everyone was cheering on Dukakis’ 17- point lead, and he grudgingly gave Bush II the nod for re-election in ’04)

  36. 36
    Jenny says:

    @Martin:

    but the non-primary voters won’t suddenly engage around a candidate they weren’t interested in engaging with in the primaries.

    This.

  37. 37
    MikeJ says:

    Still trying to decide if I should sign up to vote in the Republican caucus in WA just to fuck with them. I’ve personally spoken to republicans that say they’ll stay home if Newt gets the nom which makes me want to help him.

  38. 38
    Violet says:

    @Jebediah:
    My favorite Son Volt song of all time. And my favorite part, takes me back to long, all-night road trips:

    Switching it over to AM
    Searching for a truer sound
    Can’t recall the call letters
    Steel guitar and settle down
    __
    Catching an all-night station somewhere in Louisiana
    It sounds like 1963, but for now it sounds like heaven

    May the wind take your troubles away.

  39. 39
    Nylund says:

    The GOP could nominate an actual elephant and Fox News would get the troops in line. David Brooks will suddenly declare it sensible and even David Broder will return from the dead to name the elephant a very serious candidate.

  40. 40
    Redshift says:

    Romney draws his strength from urban counties and Gingrich draws his from rural counties.

    In other words, Romney draws his “strength” from areas that are more heavily Democratic. Yeah, that sounds like a great basis for a Republican to win the general election…

  41. 41
    burnspbesq says:

    Thank you NPR First Listen for letting me hear the new Sharon Van Etten record that is due out next Tuesday. Now I understand what all the fuss has been about.

  42. 42
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Nylund:

    “The dead are rising from their graves…and they’re voting REPUBLICAN!”

  43. 43
    Donut says:

    The Teahadis are gonna turn out this fall, but not for the Republican nominee. They hate Romney with a visceral passion. They are going to run an independent conservative. I am almost willing to bet money on it. Almost.

  44. 44
    burnspbesq says:

    @Donut:

    Obama can’t possibly get that lucky.

  45. 45
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @DougJarvus Green-Ellis:

    But listen closer…not for very much longer…

  46. 46
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @burnspbesq:

    The Republicans in Illinois chose Allan Keyes to run against Obama for the Senate.

    Then McGramps selected an unvetted bimbo to be his running mate.

    Obama’s luck makes Bill Clinton’s look like a guy who bets on a natural, and always rolls snake eyes.

  47. 47
    eemom says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    It helps to keep reminding people that in order to win an election, you have to motivate your side to show up, not just count on the other side to not show up. Ask Senator Martha Coakley or the Mass. Democratic Party about this.

    As I have previously said, believing what I do about republican turnout has ZERO to do with believing that work needs to be done. Of course we can’t be complacent; of course we can take less than nothing for granted. Or as some wise commenter whose identity escapes me at the moment said sometime in the last week or so, no matter what the polls say, we’ve gotta work as though Obama is 5 points behind.

    Once that point is acknowledged, however — and as long as folks are determined to obsess over this circus 24/7 between now and November — I see no reason not to be optimistic where optimism is due. I just think the laws of politics=laws of physics people are wrong about this one. Again, yes, some teatards will hold their Aryan noses and pull the lever for the white guy. But NOT ALL OF THEM.

    You have to remember, these people fancy themselves as “principled.”

  48. 48
    Roxie says:

    My Teahadist friend who used to send me all kinds of crazy links from Biggovernment and GB is scared to death of Mitt. Betweeen the flip flops and his faith, she is convinced he is a RINO. She said her husband, who has a heavy influence on her, is actually thinking of voting for Obama. He believes he will screw the country into oblivion during the next 4 years making it impossible for another Democrat to be elected for years and years. Me, I’m just glad the links have stopped

  49. 49
    Martin says:

    @burnspbesq: He might. It’s a whole new grift out there. Prior to Citizens United, the only money play was to get on the party cash-flow, and 3rd party runs were relatively difficult to finance (e.g., pay for the wife and kids to travel around the country, buy fuck-me-boots, and so on). But now, all you need is a Koch Brother to back you and a 3rd party run can pay pretty good with a minimum amount of work.

    I don’t know if anyone is going to try it, but the potential for a 3rd party run is probably greater now than ever, IMO – at least on the right. Harder to get that kind of scam running on the left.

  50. 50
    dogwood says:

    @Martin:

    I don’t think I ever disagree with you, Martin, but this is wishful thinking. The TeaParty isn’t some new entity. They are Republicans who lost their shit when a black man became president. Their leaders who are grifting off the rubes will continue to talk a good game, but the overwhelming majority of Republicans who tried to rebrand themselves with the TeaParty name will absolutely fall in line. And as far as evangelicals not turning out because of Mitt’s Mormonism, that is wishful thinking too. Their preachers who love having that direct line to the White House will tell them that a Mormon is better than a Muslim. Besides, evangelicals who are most aggressively anti-Mormon tend to come from the South where it won’t matter that much if the right-wing religious vote is somewhat depressed. Out West, evangelicals have been voting for Mormons for decades.

  51. 51
    eemom says:

    @Roxie:

    That’s another good point. Tweety was bloviating a while back about rumors that the republican PTB have secretly given up on regaining the WH this time around, and instead are focused on plentiful alternative strategies for fucking the country over in the next 4 years and beyond. It didn’t get any traction at the time but it sounds pretty plausible to me.

  52. 52
    dogwood says:

    @Donut:

    Not gonna happen. As soon as Romney secures the nomination, all the disdain they have for him will be refocused against Barack Obama.

  53. 53
    gwangung says:

    @dogwood:

    As soon as Romney secures the nomination, all the disdain they have for him will be refocused against Barack Obama.

    Oh, certainly it will. That type of top down action is easy to do and predictable.

    But much as we’d like to call them “sheeple”, they’re have volition of their own, and it’s far from certain that they’re going to fight as hard, particularly if we can act to break their will.

  54. 54
    Martin says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Obama’s luck makes Bill Clinton’s look like a guy who bets on a natural, and always rolls snake eyes.

    Not luck. Obama is a scary motherfucker to run against. He’s organized, he’s on message, he’s got basically no skeletons which is why the right has gone to such lengths to invent some. And the GOP has NO idea how to deal with race unless they can turn their opponent into a caricature, which Obama refuses to yield to. That’s why they ran Keyes against him – figured a black guy wouldn’t get into trouble against Obama.

    I know it’s tempting to credit the GOP with organizational skill and discipline and deride the Dems as being disorganized, but the GOP have nothing on Obama. Honest to god, if there’s one thing that Obama leaves behind in the Democratic party, I hope to hell it’s his organization. It’s really fucking impressive, and everyone should be afraid to run against that.

  55. 55
    Jebediah says:

    @Violet:
    It is one of several Son Volt songs that I can’t help but sing along with – as long as no humans are within earshot. I don’t personally know anyone who deserves that punishment. My dogs, however, have very lax standards regarding singing (or “singing.”)
    Saw them not too long ago at the Egyptian. Wobbly start but after a few songs it did start to sound like heaven…

  56. 56
    Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason says:

    @Martin:

    Honest to god, if there’s one thing that Obama leaves behind in the Democratic party, I hope to hell it’s his organization.

    That was my impression, down in the trenches. The difference between 2004 and 2008 was amazing. In 2004, I’m walking traditional city Democratic precincts. In 2008, they’ve already been covered, they’ve got me knocking on farmhouse doors in South PA.

  57. 57
    Gordon, The Big Express Engine says:

    What does this have to do with Giants/Pats this weekened? I was DJGE’s pick for the Super Bowl!

  58. 58
    Martin says:

    @dogwood: Oh, I don’t doubt the party will tell them a Mormon is better than a Muslim, and I don’t doubt they believe that. But they’re going to turn their energy sideways, just as the PUMAs did.

    They’re already getting the message that they’ve lost this round. It’s not that Romney isn’t better than Obama, it’s that Romney can’t beat Obama, and everyone knows it. So why is the party backing a guy that they know can’t beat Obama? They don’t like Romney, but they don’t blame Romney for trying to win the race – they blame the party for letting him, just as the PUMAs blamed the Dem establishment for allowing Obama to win the nom, when the PUMAs were certain that he couldn’t win and that Hillary could.

    You get these really odd dynamics when you have ideologues. We’re familiar with the pattern – their ideas don’t fail, they are failed. And so they double down on their ideology and blame process, invent conspiracies, and so on. They’ll stay true to their anti-Obama stance, accept that Romney can’t beat him, and start acting on how to punish the GOP establishment into compliance with their ideology. In part, the Tea Party started with that premise – that the GOP failed them by nominating McCain or refusing to allow Palin to take over the top of the ticket, or whatever.

    They weren’t anti-conservative, they were anti-establishment (even as they were being backed by the establishment). I don’t see a problem with them abandoning the GOP establishment as a protest against a Romney nom, again, not because they dislike Romney so much as they think the GOP prevented a strong candidate from emerging. Remember, their positions can’t fail, they can only be failed, and the GOP is who is failing them. So they’ll withhold their money, their energy, even their vote in some cases – either by not turning out, or by voting libertarian or some other 3rd party.

  59. 59
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Gordon, The Big Express Engine:

    My pick for the Super Bowl is Seahawks over Steelers, unless the refs lose their minds.

  60. 60
    dogwood says:

    @Martin:

    This I agree with completely. What has surprised me about the Republican primary season is how “national” rather than local it has been. Weekly nationally televised debates and ad wars are not GOTV mechanisms. Obama had more campaign offices open in Iowa and NH than any Republican. I imagine he has more offices up an running in Florida than Romney. Mitt has yet to show that he can actually get people to the polls. Candidates create enthusiasm not just through their own persona, but through the enthusiasm and follow-through of their volunteers. And there is no doubt, the Obama campaign attracts and trains excellent volunteers.

  61. 61
    Gordon, The Big Express Engine says:

    arghh – no edit.. i WANT dougj’s pick…

  62. 62
    freelancer says:

    @Martin:

    I agree with you. And the most striking thing to me is the disparity that exists between reality and right wing opinion. We all know this, but it has become so endemic in the wingnut mind that it is actually going to pay electoral dividends for the President this time around. To hear Newt, Paul, and Romney speak, you would think that Obama is actually Alan Colmes in blackface. They create a strawman of their opposition that their base acknowledges as pure evil and motivate them to do anything to keep him from power, and then there’s the reality of who the President actually IS.

    This bubble is going to pop in early November and they will spend another 4 years re-inflating it against the next object of hate that they seemingly pull from their littany of villains, as if they actually have a Far Side-esque Conservative Daily Calender of librul traitors.

  63. 63
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Martin:

    I don’t know. The teabaggers are basically hardcore GOP types who were galvanized to create a “new” movement to do SOMETHING about the damn Democrat ni*CLANG* who kicked McGramps’ pathetic ass in 2008. The nominal “cause” is the deficit, but the lie of course is as long as you’re borrowing and spending to kill brown people and give tax breaks to the 1%, they don’t give a rat’s ass about deficits. What they DO care about is an usurper Muslim ni*CLANG* occupying Saint Ronald’s once pristine WHITE House. Not only does Obama desecrate the Oval Office by his melanin surplus, and his party, the guy doesn’t wear a suit and tie in it all the time, one of Clinton’s additional mortal sins…almost as great a sin as getting a blow job in the Oval Office. Like Nancy, the blow job QUEEN of Hollywood didn’t blow Saint Ronald there.

    They may not like OvenMitt much, but, just as McGramps was “unacceptable” in 2008, but they came around, so too will it be with OvenMitt.

    The key thing is, how much will OvenMitt turn off the Rethug leaning contingent of the mushy middle.

  64. 64
    gwangung says:

    Candidates create enthusiasm not just through their own persona, but through the enthusiasm and follow-through of their volunteers.

    Yeah, this. And logistics, organization and planning which melds with raw emotion and enthusiasm of the base.

    Obama still has the machinery. The enthusiasm might be down a bit, but the Komen Foundation and other incidents are gonna bring some of that back.

    I’m not sure Romney has the organization; as an MBA candidate, I’m not sure he has a good handle of the nuts and bolts of organizations AND their individuals. And I don’t think he’ll have the enthusiasm. All he can bring is anti-Obama fury and that’s good only for the base, but not for lapsed moderates (ie., independents).

    It’s not going to be an easy go for the Dems, but there really is an actual enthusiasm gap here.

  65. 65
    Gordon, The Big Express Engine says:

    @freelancer: Someone here recently, may have been a front pager, made the observation that the GOP is in major negative mode and their candidates are defining themselves by what they are not, not by what they are. This will hurt them if this primary process drags on. Still, I go back to the 46% in the bank vote the GOP has regardless of the opposition and I worry about the outcome.

  66. 66
    eemom says:

    @Martin:

    YEAH.

    I’m usually not a betting man, but I think you and I can seriously clean some clocks come November if we can get these doom-mongers to put their money where their dumb ass “republicans are SO better organized than we are and that’s SO inevitable” mindless CW-parroting is.

    Let’s start one of those “pool” things like they do for basketball…..

  67. 67
    Catsy says:

    It would take a dramatic collapse of some sort–the economy, or Obama himself–to allow the Republicans to win the presidency this year. Realistically, there are only two candidates left in the race; it’s too late for a new candidate to get on most of the ballots. Their frontrunner is someone their base hates with a visceral loathing even more powerful than the one who had McCain–and I think people forget just how much they hated ending up with him.

    Yes, they sucked it up anyway and held their nose while they pulled the lever. But it wasn’t enough. Obama didn’t just defeat McCain, he absolutely crushed him in electoral votes. Romney doesn’t even have McCain’s military service to fall back on–he would be the first Republican candidate for president in decades to not have served. And McCain at least had some popular appeal and ability to connect emotionally with people. Romney would fail a fucking Voight-Kampff test.

    Independents will probably split along general ideological bent, but I don’t know–at the rate Romney’s unfavorables are going up because of silver-foot-in-mouth disease, they’ll probably stay home or flip in droves.

    But Romney is a truly historically appalling candidate, and he might well collapse before this is over. Which would leave them stuck with the Salamander, a nasty imp of a man who is broadly loathed by everyone except movement conservatives with no soul and some teabaggers. It would be a slaughter.

    And for either of them–exactly who do they pick for VP? Newt and Romney are not going to serve on the same ticket. They are going for the throat, and Reagan’s eleventh commandment isn’t even a distant memory. Newt would need to run with someone who isn’t bugfuck, preferably someone likeable to counterbalance him. Romney would need someone with impeccable conservative and theocrat credentials to bring out the true believers. In either case Huckabee comes to mind. It’s not that he’d be a good pick–he’s just better than most of the others. Especially when you look at the states won by McCain that the GOP has to flip in order to even come within shouting distance of enough electoral votes.

    No, at this point I’m feeling pretty good about our chances. I have never in my life seen a Republican field of such incompetence and unlikeability.

  68. 68
    The Dangerman says:

    @Gordon, The Big Express Engine:

    Still, I go back to the 46% in the bank vote the GOP has regardless of the opposition and I worry about the outcome.

    Although I’m not overly concerned per se (Obama wins and we aren’t staying up late to find that out), it was fascinating to see the Establishment Candidate be threatened…

    …and the Establishment reacting by opening the money spigots in Florida; the ratio of ads Mitt/Newt is mindnumbing. Overkill doesn’t begin to describe it.

    Now, Obama will have a huge amount of money to spend as well, but Romney (and his SuperPac’s) will spend a pile that won’t be approached for a long, long time.

  69. 69
    Cricket says:

    @Martin: It has been interesting to watch the wingnut blogosphere over the past few months. The dynamic you describe is playing out there. There’s a lot of anger at the establishment GOP in general and Mitt Romney in particular. They’re feeling sold out, and rightly so. The GOP wants to win and they know they won’t with the candidates the Tea Party folks want.

    One thing to keep in mind is that the wingnut ideologues are fringe, even if they do make up a larger portion of the GOP than the far left do the Democratic party. Even if some of them don’t vote or vote third party, Romney could make up the difference. It will be up to the Dems to GOTV. I, for one, am ready to work my butt off doing that.

    *Edited for spelling

  70. 70
    Martin says:

    @dogwood: Well, I think it’s indicative of a deeper philosophical difference developing between the parties. More and more, the GOP seems to feel they can buy their way out of everything. You can’t buy turnout. You can buy a little bit of it – money to pay staff, but you can’t buy the energy behind a good message delivered by people that really believe the message.

    For the sake of the country, I hope Obama absolutely destroys in this election. I want to see 1984 level margins. The GOP need a massive failure in order to change course, and we as a nation need them to change course in a big way. The goal isn’t to just run up the score, but to humiliate the GOP to a degree that forces them to enbiggen the tent, to abandon some of these sacred positions and to join the Dems on the side of inevitable progress in at least some places.

  71. 71
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    What worries me is the fact that, as Gordon said, is that the GOP is probably going to get at least 45% of the popular vote no matter what, and that’s not many more voters to peel away for them to win it.

    What encourages me is the electoral vote. I forget the exact numbers, but it’s something like the GOP having to flip Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, or at least 4 of 5, to win the electoral vote.

    Can you imagine if Obama wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote? My God, the Teahadis would start burning shit down.

  72. 72
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Jebediah: @Violet: I knew there was a reason I liked you guys.

    You may be quite sure
    You know where you’re going
    But sooner or later
    You’re out of the picture

    Jay Farrar was the real deal.

  73. 73

    I’ve told this story elsewhere, but Rmoney reminds me of my mom’s late husband, Jim. Very religious guy (Mom is very religious, too… fundie stuff). You can just tell he’s never really interacted with anyone outside his bubble, before. Very wooden, trying to seem a lot more clued in than he is sort-of-thang.

    A few years ago, he and Mom stayed a few nights at my place as they were traveling for some church thang, and Nashville was on the way. We’re watching something on the tube, and there are some scantily-clad women on the program. Jim says to me (bachelor), “Boy… doesn’t that make ya just wanna marry ’em?” Sure, Jim. Whatever you say.
    .

  74. 74
    barath says:

    The one thing I wonder about is if Romney picks Rubio (as I kind of assume he will), will that be enough to make it a tough race again. I think so. Rubio won’t swing most Latinos, but he will swing some, especially in Florida and maybe in some other swing states. He also has tea party cred. The media will croon about how rugged and presidential the ticket looks, and will of course want it to be a real fight if for nothing other than ratings…

  75. 75
    dogwood says:

    @Martin:

    They’re already getting the message that they’ve lost this round. It’s not that Romney isn’t better than Obama, it’s that Romney can’t beat Obama, and everyone knows it. So why is the party backing a guy that they know can’t beat Obama?

    Yeah, I see your point and it’s pretty compelling. I guess I tend to think that the problems Republicans will have in this next election won’t be with a lack of enthusiasm on their side, but with the enthusiasm on the Democratic side. I actually think as this thing starts to roll out Democrats are going to be very enthused about voting. I think the party has the ability to tap into new voters as well. I expect to see “real” enthusiasm this time from unions. In 08 the unions endorsed the President and did their thing, but I don’t know how enthused the rank and file were. This time they know what’s really at stake and the rank and file will be spreading the word to their friends and relatives. That’s the kind of support that makes a difference.

  76. 76
    The Dangerman says:

    @Martin:

    The GOP need a massive failure in order to change course, and we as a nation need them to change course in a big way.

    I don’t see a Romney loss alone creating that Soul Searching moment (if you choose to argue they lack a Soul, I won’t argue the point). Romney will have been too much of a centrist (unbelievably, Krauthammer was attacking Romney from the Right for the Poor People comment; anything other than a Jonathan Swift style proposal – modesty not required – apparently will not do).

    Now, if they lose the House along with Romney, there is possible for them to go searching for that which they may not have.

  77. 77
    Gordon, The Big Express Engine says:

    @The Dangerman: Agreed. They are fielding a weak candidate either way. Didn’t mean to sound wishy washy, I plan to donate and work it here in Texas (not that it will matter much). The buzzkill, in my view, is the lack of a media that really holds both parties accountable (ably covered here and other places). That is more likely to hurt the Democrats this year.

    Had an interesting conversation with a recent college grad who works in my office and we both agreed that Romney would not be a complete disaster (like Newt or GWB) if he wins. What we struggled with was, why is Mitt Romney a Republican in the first place? Wasn’t he an independent at some point? If he was a D, he would have been a much more successful politician. After two beers and some further discussion, we realized that given his background, money and contacts, a firm D commitment would probably seem alien to him and that is where he is where he is.

  78. 78
    barath says:

    @Gordon, The Big Express Engine:

    Very true – Romney could have been another Evan Bayh – a bland, big money conservative Democrat. Of course that didn’t really work out for Bayh as a success strategy to become president, but it did get him a lot of attention for the years he was in the senate.

  79. 79
    The Dangerman says:

    @Gordon, The Big Express Engine:

    Romney would not be a complete disaster (like Newt or GWB) if he wins.

    My fear of Romney is that he shares Dubya’s Oedipus complex; Dubya’s Daddy issues gave us Iraq (well, those issues and PNAC). Complete disaster? Maybe not. Disaster? Oh, yeah.

  80. 80
    fuckwit says:

    @Jebediah: May the wind take your troubles away.

  81. 81
    Martin says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    but they came around, so too will it be with OvenMitt.

    But they didn’t really come around. Obama won by a pretty wide margin, and I Palin did more to pull the teahadists around than McCain did. And all the while, they were begging the party to flip the ticket and put Palin at the top. The Tea Party emerged in part because Obama won, but I think also because the teahadists didn’t get to run the race they wanted. They didn’t lose – the GOP did.

    In 2010, they won the race they wanted to win. Not only did the Dems lose a lot of seats, but they shoved out a lot of establishment Republicans as well, and forced Boehner to abandon the establishment line and deal with these new freshmen congressmen, that refused to go along with the party. The establishment GOP would never have repeatedly made the kinds of mistakes the GOP have in Congress the last year (risk of default, opposing the payroll tax cut) or the teatard governors have with fighting unions and so on. Those are profoundly unpopular nationally, and yet they STILL fight that fight.

    But here in 2012, where do they stand? They have a governor at risk of being recalled, several of their 2010 winners already recalled, and Mittens being pushed as the face of the GOP. Why aren’t the GOP establishment backing the 2010 winners? Why aren’t they pushing national candidates that would bring support (that must obviously exist) to these embattled patriots. Why isn’t the GOP fighting to support their 2010 victory? They’re right back in 2008 again and the GOP is failing them (at least from their perspective).

  82. 82
    cmorenc says:

    @Donut:

    The Teahadis are gonna turn out this fall, but not for the Republican nominee. They hate Romney with a visceral passion. They are going to run an independent conservative. I am almost willing to bet money on it. Almost.

    Mitt Romney would gladly bet you $10,000 that you’re wrong.

  83. 83
    Martin says:

    @The Dangerman:

    Now, if they lose the House along with Romney, there is possible for them to go searching for that which they may not have.

    Yeah, and I think they may lose the House. We’ll see where Obama plays. They’re setting up a possible play for Texas. If they decide to try that, and they can get the latino vote to turn out, a Dem win in Texas would hurt badly. Romney is going to have trouble there, and it’ll cost a TON of money and energy to do, but if you see Obama make a play for it, consider a 2nd term a done deal, and the Dems going for a realignment. And two open senate seats sweetens the deal.

    The anti-union move in Arizona might be the best news of the week. Obama can win Arizona with this level of fucktitutde – and carry a senate seat with him.

  84. 84

    @Martin:

    The goal isn’t to just run up the score, but to humiliate the GOP to a degree that forces them to enbiggen the tent, to abandon some of these sacred positions and to join the Dems on the side of inevitable progress in at least some places.

    If the GOP gets crushed under the Mittens’ banner you think that the reaction will be to shift toward sanity? How is it you break that infamous 27% number into a political calculus that says the GOP moves off that dime?

    As for one base or the other staying home, exit polling on Party affiliation says that’s pretty much horseshit. The base makes loud threats and then turns out. Noise isn’t the same thing as votes.

    The base is a lot of things, but one thing you can count on is that they really don’t like the other side. You know, like a lot. That certainly doesn’t mean that both Parties cater to their base the same, but thinking you’re going to get a leg up because one base or the other is dissatisfied is wishful thinking. If the base gets some kind of a bone in the GE they will come out, and it doesn’t take much of a bone.

    The biggest and best marker that something important is going on is a fall in Party registration.

  85. 85
    Yutsano says:

    @eemom:

    I’m usually not a betting man

    I would hope not. We’d have a lot to explain to your husband otherwise. ;)

  86. 86
    Jebediah says:

    @Jewish Steel:
    Somewhere along the way…

    Austin City Limits video.

  87. 87
    dogwood says:

    @Martin:

    Why isn’t the GOP fighting to support their 2010 victory? They’re right back in 2008 again and the GOP is failing them (at least from their perspective).

    And the irony here, Martin, is that this group of people who really do think they believe in small government are turning to the government as their last resort to turn back the tide. It’s not just a black family in the White House that scares them to death. That was simply the last straw. It’s everything that has them on edge. It’s gay marriage, gays in the military, Spanish directions on the products they buy. The TeaParty has always been with us and always will be. People who can’t cope with or adjust to change always find solace in fringe movements that make them feel important. So maybe you are right. Maybe 2010 made them feel important and they aren’t going to go along to get along in this election.

  88. 88
    Jebediah says:

    @Jewish Steel:
    Thanks!

    Jay Farrar was the real deal.

    Indeed… a music critic friend said all my Son Volt listening might be why I am so fond of minor chords.

  89. 89
  90. 90
    Martin says:

    @Chuck Butcher:

    The biggest and best marker that something important is going on is a fall in Party registration.

    Well, Dems are up 1% in CA to 43% and GOP are down 3% to 30%. We’re not the country, but the home of Reagan is trending ever more blue, in spite of our 11.3% unemployment rate.

  91. 91

    With all due respect

    may be the most disingenuously used statement in the English language.

  92. 92

    @Martin:

    But they didn’t really come around. Obama won by a pretty wide margin, and I Palin did more to pull the teahadists around than McCain did

    Oh for pete’s sake. GOP registration took a hit in 06 and really in 08. The President won big with non-affiliated by exit polls. You seriously underestimate the degree of insult it would take to depress the base, especially in a Pres GE. Now if you want to try to break down where the registration losses went to your life gets a bit difficult.

    This far out from a GE it is pretty silly to start stating where the moderate parts of the Party or the NAs are going to go, particularly when conditions are unsettled.

    If I were the President’s campaign (and what I’ve seen is this) what I’d do is mildly push the populist message enough to keep the ground troops hopeful and mildly enough to not create any dings in the “Middle.”

  93. 93
    amk says:

    Ali’s trainer Angelo Dundee dies

  94. 94
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    The nominal “cause” is the deficit, but the lie of course is as long as you’re borrowing and spending to kill brown people and give tax breaks to the 1%, they don’t give a rat’s ass about deficits.

    When they say “the deficit,” they don’t mean it in a strict budgetary sense. They mean “giving generous handouts to lazy people.” Because of giving generous handouts to lazy people, you know, _them_, the government starts to run short of money, and to get more it has to take it from the people who work hard, i.e., _us_. This threat is known as “socia1ism” or “Europe.” The underlying cause is “the deficit,” as for instance “Obamacare,” which either raised our taxes or will soon raise them, because we can’t go on like this. This is 95% of what makes Republicans Republican. The other 5% is preachers telling them it’s in the Bible.

  95. 95
    Martin says:

    @Chuck Butcher:

    If the GOP gets crushed under the Mittens’ banner you think that the reaction will be to shift toward sanity? How is it you break that infamous 27% number into a political calculus that says the GOP moves off that dime?

    Well, that’s their problem. They have their 27% and are steadily losing the remaining 73%. At some point that 27% will be viewed as a liability and not as an asset.

    27% of the electoral college is 118 EVs. That’s CA, AZ, NM, NV, TX – all states that are either or soon to be majority-minority states due mainly to latino population. Latinos aren’t turning out in those numbers to carry states like TX, but as soon as that changes, the GOP will have to change.

    The national demographics are largely meaningless because they don’t mean shit in election results. If those 27% are mostly concentrated in Dixie and spread out in numbers too insignificant to deliver districts and EVs, then they’re powerless – except in their ability to carry the microphone, where they wield disproportionate power. But ultimately the GOP is going to have to bend to the reality of the electoral math as redistricting and voting shenanigans can only take them so far. McCain only won 32% of the EVs in 2008 even with 46% of the popular vote. That 27% isn’t getting it done where it needs to get done, and my sense is that the problem is getting worse, not better. Obama will probably lose states like Alabama even worse than he did in 2008, but he could plausibly swing Montana, Missouri, Georgia, Arizona and the Dakotas while the GOP seems to be doing a bang-up job of tanking the states Obama was most at risk of losing – Florida, Ohio, and Indiana – all to appeal to the 27%ers.

  96. 96

    @Martin:
    Those numbers are a hell of a lot more meaningful than speculation.

    Something that isn’t exactly available is some software that collects registration numbers, election turn out by registration right down to very small geographic areas and the votes cast. I’ve had access to this stuff and its abilities are damn near astonishing. Without real large money resources you can’t get it, it is expensive enough that State Parties, with a discount, wince. It does not infringe on vote privacy but I could look and know what your registration is, how long, your voting frequency, and a bunch of other things including your address – I would not know your vote. I’m not going to even touch on its electioneering tools, if you’re computer savvy it would take 12 hrs of courses to begin to get a hand on its capabilities.

  97. 97

    @Martin:
    Loosely speaking the electorate is split in thirds, each party and then the NAs. 27% is a big part of a third. That was my point.

    I think it is real bad for the nation to have one of two Parties going off the rails, but it is going to take some real time for the message to get through. I mentioned a while ago that per exit polling gun owners shifted their vote over two successive Presidential elections and in Gore’s case it was sufficient to axe him (get him selected) and in Kerry’s it was a close question of being determinate. It took more than losing two for the Democrats to get the idea, but they’ve sort of got it – enough to not push it into a single issue vote.

    It is possible to sufficiently scare your voters to turn them, but you have to go out of your way pretty intensely to manage it. I think the “religious expception to ACA” can KMA, but it could turn more than a handful of votes. GWB did a hell of a number on the GOP middle, that took a lot.

    I think the Democrats are a hell of a lot smarter than the GOPers.

  98. 98
    Triassic Sands says:

    On one level I understand why people think Romney is a better general election candidate than Gingrich. However, the more I see of Romney, the less I can imagine people voting for him. How could anyone be enthusiastic about such a fraud?

  99. 99
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    Man are the natives restless over at Redstate. EE has a post up about Romney’s latest gaffe about not caring about the poor and they are in total meltdown on it for the exact opposite reason the left is; they think that Romney is saying that he will provide even more social services and repair the safety net! Fuck are they going nuts over it which is pissing off the Romney supporters, such as this one:

    Another amazing moment from a leading member of the ” New Conservativism ” .I use this term , because Erick , Rush , Sean , Valentine and Laura ARE NOT REAGAN CONSERVATIVES !!! Would Reagan Conservatives bash a candidate they don’t like because he has money and thier chosen candidate does not have as much ? ” It’s not fair that Romney out spent Newt in Florida ! “These New Conservatives whine like petulant children . Erick , you seem to be a ” Conservative ” of convenience.You support Capitalism until your candidate bashes it . Then you become almost as big a hater of the rich as Marx or Engles were . You hate the ” Establishment ” . You tell all that will listen how you wish to purge them from the Republican Party but again whine when they refuse to back candidates you support . Newt and all his straying from conservative principles is to be forgiven . Romney , who has never claimed to be a Reagan Conservative is not to be forgiven . Why ? Because you believe Newt is the real conservative in the race ? Would Reagan bash Capitalism , agree with the health care mandate , believe in climate change and declare that his era was over ? Erick , Rush , Sean , Valentine and Laura your acts are getting old . Your not Conservatives !! Just career minded opportunists .

    Here’s a rant against Romney from an old timer there:

    you can put icing on a turd but on the inside, it’s still a turd
     
    who cares about how polished his campaign team is?
     
    Who cares if the whole establishment is lined up behind him?
     
    Who cares what geniuses he’s surrounded himself with?
     
    Who cares what narrative his team has written about him?
     
    In the end…we’re faced with a flawed candidate who combines the principles and excitement of Bob Dole George H W Bush
    with the petty arrogance and nasty temperament of John McCain who flip flops like john Kerry and is stiff as Al Gore…the…now we add the gaff a minute foot in mouth contortions of Joe Freaking Biden….
     
    Take every negative quality and irritating tendency of every losing presidential candidate for the last 40 years and you have Willard “The Rat” Mitt Romney!!!
     
    What a bunch of mindless idiots we have running this party!!!

    I think he has a slight problem supporting Romney, eh? And the hits keep hitting them again and again…

    Now, Romney is calling for automatic….
    rightwingnut2 (Diary) Wednesday, February 1st at 6:54PM EST (link)
     
    …increases to the minimum wage.
     
    http://hotair.com/archives/201.....imum-wage/

    And finally, one more hit that hurts:

    Romney has won by destroying voter turnout
     
    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n.....nout-lags/
     
    The “political professionals” in the Republican Party are fools. They’ve declared war on the very people who gave them victory in 2010, and they think those people will just show up in November no matter what. It looks like they’re going to have to learn their lesson the hard way.
     
    And it doesn’t help that Romney is a terrible candidate.

    The non-stop train wreck at Redstate is impossible not to rubberneck. With all of the whining, bitching, moaning, groaning and attacks, it is truly a glorious and epic disaster in the making. The extreme right may be out to get Obama but first they are going to have to go through Mitt to get him!

    I would have never guessed that they would have been in this position two years ago. They are even bitching about the supreme court decision in Citizens United, saying that is the reason Romney is stomping all over the Tea Party people to take the prize.

    Sorry to distract from the fun here, just thought I would share some sights from my forays into the wingnut wilderness. ;)

  100. 100

    @Triassic Sands:

    enthusiastic about such a fraud?

    President Obama.

  101. 101

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    I think the “good” outcome isn’t that they’ll stay home – it is that they will scare the hell out of the middle both with their candidates and their loud public noises. (not their blog)

  102. 102
    Xenos says:

    @dogwood:

    Out West, evangelicals have been voting for Mormons for decades.

    What state out west matters? Are you saying Mitt would have a shot in CO or NM? If the evengelical movement has a freakout about Mitt having endorsed the White Horse prophecy, such that Obama can get PA, OH, and FL, then who cares about CO being peeled off?

  103. 103
    amk says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    Oh, my….

    Take every negative quality and irritating tendency of every losing presidential candidate for the last 40 years and you have Willard “The Rat” Mitt Romney

  104. 104
    Pat In Massachusetts says:

    Nevertheless, Mormonism is the “other” religion, and I don’t think even Roger Ailes will have much clout in winning over the die hard Christians to Romney’s camp.

    Even though I think all organized religion is just a tool to keep the masses afraid of the hereafter, Mormonism, just like Scientology is just a little too cult-ish for the average American voter.

  105. 105
    Samara Morgan says:

    @DougJarvus Green-Ellis: bingo.
    Demographics is destiny.

    But surely the GOP strategists know this. Is Romney just a pharmekos to Prepare the Way for Marco Rubio?

  106. 106
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Pat In Massachusetts: and mormons make up only 2% of the american pop. White christian evangelicals OTOH make up 30%, and 50% of the GOP base.
    oh, and did i mention that mormons are 99% white? Like the GOP base?

    DougJ is right. The GOP has a demographic problem. And they doan wanna talk about it because talking about it makes it worse.
    And the horse race media doan wanna talk about it because no one pays to watch a one horse race.
    Even Nate Silver wont talk about it.

  107. 107
    Xenos says:

    @Samara Morgan: You are giving them way to much credit. They are masters at marketing, but they have no ideas for going forward as a party.

  108. 108
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Xenos: oh, they KNOW about the demographic timer. but you are right they have no clue what to do about it.

  109. 109
    Schlemizel says:

    @eemom: Will some republicans grudgingly turn out no matter what? Sure. But the motherfuckers themselves know, and I’ve heard them admit, that many of the hard core ‘tards will NOT.

    Please give us the names of all the important Rs you have heard admit this so we can hear it from them too. Personally, I’d like you to start with the moneybags who fund all the FUD that gets the base fired up to vote for crap like W.

    Till I have checked out your list myself I am going to assume that the past is prolog & the noise machine will work overtime to make the GOP sows ear into a silk purse that their base will crawl over broken glass to vote for just to keep that Knee-grow, commie, Kenyan, phoney from further destroying our great land.

    I will still donate what I can (not as much this time – lot of medical expenses this past year & many more to come this one) and as much time as my body will allow on the assumption we are down by 5. If my assumption is wrong maybe we take back the House, gain in the Senate & turn a few states back to the light. If your assumption is wrong we get 4 years of President Willard and is wrecking crew fucking up whatever tiny remains were left unfucked by Boy Blunder.

  110. 110
    Schlemizel says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:
    Bless you for reading that dreadful sludge & even more so for being so kind as to share it with us, it made me smile!

  111. 111
    priscianusjr says:

    @Roxie:

    She said her husband, who has a heavy influence on her, is actually thinking of voting for Obama. He believes he will screw the country into oblivion during the next 4 years making it impossible for another Democrat to be elected for years and years.

    The Obama folks could develop a whole campaign strategy to attract the Tea vote, based on that idea .

  112. 112
    bob h says:

    Romney seems intent on repeating the blunder of his Father, whose ambitions were torpedoed by one carelessly chosen word, “brainwashed”. Newt should hang in there waiting for that word.

  113. 113
    priscianusjr says:

    @Jeffraham Prestonian:

    “Boy… doesn’t that make ya just wanna marry ‘em?”

    That’s kind of endearing, actually.

  114. 114
    priscianusjr says:

    @The Dangerman:

    Now, if they lose the House along with Romney, there is possible for them to go searching for that which they may not have.

    Yes, they will search their hearts and they will realize that the GOP candidates were not conservative enough for America.

  115. 115
    priscianusjr says:

    @The prophet Nostradumbass:

    With all due respect
    may be the most disingenuously used statement in the English language.

    Not necessarily. The kicker lies in the word “due”.

  116. 116
    priscianusjr says:

    @Martin:

    At some point that 27% will be viewed as a liability and not as an asset.

    I believe that point has been reached.

  117. 117
    r€nato says:

    I am compelled to be a grammar pedant, but first let me note – in order to ward off the people who hate grammar nazis – that I did read the post in its entirety, and I do agree that Repubs who would never vote for a Democrat, will hold their noses and vote Romney this November. Just like those of us old enough to vote in 1984 held our noses and voted for Mondale/Ferraro.

    Having that out of the way…

    “data” is plural. “datum” is the singular version.

    “These data are interesting nevertheless” may sound stilted (because it’s misused so often), but it’s correct.

    If you were only talking about a single polling result, then you would write, “this datum is interesting nevertheless.”

    /pedantic grammar nazi asshole know-it-all

  118. 118
    r€nato says:

    @Martin: the Repubtards can chant “community organizer!” all they want, like it’s an insult… it’s not a coincidence that the community organizer came out of nowhere to beat Hillary and McCain in 2008, and he’ll do it again to whichever idiot the GOP finally settles upon.

  119. 119
    Sondra says:

    I was at the Democratic Executive Committee last night (2/2/12) and they said that turnout was down about 10% all over Florida, even in the corridor where Newt did best.

Comments are closed.