What Obama’s Up Against

Not-Romney is one candidate with two heads, one of which is very large.

 

 

Nate Silver thinksthe GOP primary is going to be a long, protracted race, noting that it bears a “resemblance to something like the 1984 Democratic contest or the 1976 Republican race.” Mondale won in 1984, and Ford beat Reagan in 1976, but both primaries were close calls, and neither Mondale nor Ford inspired their respective parties.

Still, I’m not sure either one had as abysmal an outlook as presumed front-runner Mitt Romney does in this race:

Meanwhile, the two not-Romney candidates – Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum – are nipping at Romney’s heels making sure that neither one has any real chance at stealing the nomination.

And of course Ron Paul has his base of support which will likely neither grow nor dwindle in the coming months.

Now, it’s almost not even worth talking about anyone in the Republican field except Romney – the race is still his to lose as far as I’m concerned. All that Santorum’s win Tuesday achieved was to further split the not-Romney vote. That doesn’t hurt Romney – if anything it helps him. So long as both Gingrich and Santorum keep winning primaries, neither is likely to drop out. And Romney is flush with cash, a well-organized campaign, and the support of the Republican Establishment. He may not have the adoration of the now all-but-defunct Tea Party, but that hardly matters.

Romney’s real problem is President Obama.

Rest assured, the president will be well-armed with Super PAC money, campaign contributions, and a well organized network of volunteers both online and in the trenches. As the economy starts to warm up, Romney’s key selling points begin to wither. The private sector businessman routine won’t resonate if unemployment is falling, at least not with moderates and independents. He can’t really drum up culture war issues, either, given his Mormonism and his history as a moderate on social issues. And his extremism in the primary will hurt him with independents in the general, as will the negativity of his rivals, none of whom are likely to stop throwing punches any time soon.

If Ron Paul goes third party, this will almost certainly hurt Romney more than Obama.

So it’s no wonder Obama seems happy these days. The Republicans, for all their bizarre hatred of the president, have failed to field even one candidate that has a chance at unseating him, and the lack of enthusiasm among GOP voters stands in stark contrast to the 2010 mid-terms and the Rise of the Tea Party. It’s hard to imagine that this will change much in the general, though Romney could, theoretically, pick a Palinesque VP to help grind up some red meat and inspire the uninspired base.

Meanwhile, for pundits and bloggers and late-night talk show hosts, and all the political junkies out there, at least we should be in for an entertaining ride.

(cross-posted)

 






167 replies
  1. 1
    Scott says:

    OMG, why must y’all feed matoko’s bizarre obsessions?!

  2. 2
    shirleyujest says:

    After Tuesday’s vote, it’s man on dog versus dog on car.

  3. 3
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    Greetings Alien. ;)

    “Entertaining” is going to be an understatement when watching the disaster on the right unfold this summer and fall, more so as the crazy spreads across the country.

    Buy popcorn stocks while you can!

  4. 4
    jibeaux says:

    Romney’s going to win the nomination, and you’re correct that Santorum’s wins don’t change that. But I disagree that the only thing the wins change is to further split the non-Romney vote. A protracted struggle with all the Kubler-Ross stages before the inevitable Acceptance of Romney means for Romney running more negative ads, more running to the right (which necessarily also means more flip-flopping), more infighting, more bad press days, and that little teensy problem where the more people learn about Romney the less they like him.

  5. 5
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    Chaos is good. A fractious campaign(s) right up to the convention leaves the GOP brokered. Third-Party challenger(s) just sweetens the pot.

  6. 6
    Paul in KY says:

    From the pits of Colorado, Samara I summon thee!

    Buwahahahahahaha!

  7. 7
    JCT says:

    @jibeaux:

    little teensy problem where the more people learn about Romney the less they like him

    “Like”, at this rate, Romney is going to be fucking radioactive by the general.

    I’m curious to see who he picks for a running mate….

  8. 8
    Mino says:

    Since the December payroll tax debacle, Republicans seem to have slipped into the whirlpool. Every time you turn around, they find a new way to shoot a hole in the boat.

    Flipping out over Eastwood and insisting that women not receive full medical rights are just the latest. They really have a gift.

    No wonder Obama is shaking his head.

  9. 9
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Paul in KY: She’s not here yet? Slacker.

  10. 10
    E.D. Kain says:

    @jibeaux: that’s a very good point. I will rephrase: it helps him in the primary, since it divides the not-Romney vote, but it bloodies him heading into the general.

  11. 11
    E.D. Kain says:

    @Mino: no wonder Obama has been singing little ditties…

  12. 12
    shirleyujest says:

    The “all-but-defunct Tea Party” — I never dreamed I would be reading such sweet words barely a year after their glory days in the Fall of 2010. What will their corporate masters dream up next though, to keep the lower middle class voting to accelerate their own downward trajectory?

  13. 13
    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford says:

    A problem the Republicans will face in the general election is that they’ve been running against fictional Obama for 3 years now and when people see real Obama they generally like and trust him.

  14. 14
    eemom says:

    Never thought I’d live to say this, but bring it ON, toko-loko.

    To what do we owe the honor of your return, and this no-brainer of a post, you arrogant little twerp?

    My guess, as Dylan put it: you just want to be on the side that’s winning.

  15. 15
    SteveinSC says:

    with two heads, one of which is very large

    Actually, one of them has an abnormally small head making the head of the other one appear larger than normal.

  16. 16
    schrodinger's cat says:

    The prodigal blogger is back! I hope John Cole has the readied the fatted calf.

  17. 17
    jibeaux says:

    @E.D. Kain: It does help him in the primary, but also helping is the fact that his opposition seems incapable of actually getting their candidate’s name on the ballot in all of the races.

  18. 18
    Ron Beasley says:

    They never did like Ronmey and the only thing he had going for him was it looked like he could beat Obama. Now that it looks as if that’s no longer the case he really ha nothing going for him at all.

  19. 19
    Tone In DC says:

    Romneybot 3000 against SuperPrude and Serial Adulterer in a fight for all those lost marbles. Live on pay-per-view CNN.

    There will be chaos, carnage and crazed behavior. And that’s just in the press pool.

  20. 20
    SenyorDave says:

    The thing to remember is that 99% of the Republicans voting in the Republican primaries would not vote for Obama if unemployment was 2% and the budget was balanced because he is blackity, blackity, blackitty, etc.

    Most independents are up for grabs, so hopefully Romney will have to go all-in on the crazy to win the nomination. If he actually had convictions, I might feel a little pity for him.

  21. 21
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    The thing about m_c is she won’t bother to read anything ED has written, she’ll merely react to the name. It’s like any thread that touches on the Middle East gets her in to recycle all her old posts about how Muslim’s can’t be proselytized, about how it’s all American-Fundie-Exceptionalism failing, blah blah blah.

    She has this very annoying reading comprehension FAIL problem which can be traced to her never bothering to actually read any of the prior posts in the thread, to even have a shot at comprehending them.

  22. 22
    Amir Khalid says:

    I like this notion of ED Kain’s: Mr Frothy/Noot as a sort of Catholic Zaphod Beeblebrox. It has much symbolic potential, which I am sure the Juicitariat will be only too eager to realize.

  23. 23
    feebog says:

    The problem for both Noot and Frothy the Gnomeman is money. More specifically, lack thereof. I know they each have a Billionaire sugerdaddy right now, but Billionaires are notoriously fickle, and I don’t see how they keep shoveling millions into a losing campaign. The Florida campaign proved that 5 million just doesn’t go as far as it used to. Especially when your opponent is spending 15 million.

    Frothy made a big deal of the fact that he raise a quarter million after the caucus’ Tuesday night. BFD, Mittens spends that much on room service at a five star hotel over a long weekend. One thing is certain, Noot is not going anywhere. He is too full of himself, and now that he had a whiff of sucess in So. Carolina, he will be working the Southern states going into Super Tuesday.

  24. 24
    Elizabelle says:

    Speaking of large heads:

    saw a video clip on the news this week of some comedian with mock-ups of magazines that supported Newt Gingrich.

    Two were “Working Child” and “Men Who look like Babies”.

    Colbert? Stewart? Kimmel? Did anyone else see it?

  25. 25
    Mike in NC says:

    2010 mid-terms and the Rise of the Tea Party.

    Just rented “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”. Not terrible, and the apes definitely started out with higher IQs than the Tea Party types.

  26. 26

    And Romney is flush with cash, a well-organized campaign, and the support of the Republican Establishment.

    A. That cash advantage also leads to a situation where Mittens floods the market with negative ads about his opponents, thereby reminding people just how much they hate him.

    B. I vehemently disagree that Mittens’ campaign is “well-organized.” These clowns have no competent plan readily available for attacking Santorum. Maybe you mean well-organized by typical Republican standards, but in the real world, this is known as “the soft bigotry of low expectations”.

    C. I’m pretty sure we settled long ago that the support of Establishment Republicans is not necessarily a good thing in the 2012 Republican presidential primary.

    But other than that, sure, Mittens is looking top notch.

  27. 27
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @E.D. Kain:

    This is the classic GOP presidential hopeful problem. You have to appease the five-miles-to-the-right-of-Attila-the-Hun crazies in the primaries, then tack wildly to the center (with a fucking landlubber crew to do it with) in the general to have a chance.

  28. 28
    mistermix ... World Peace says:

    @Midnight Marauder: How about this: Romney has the best-organized campaign of the Republicans who are left. I think that’s both true and bad news for Republicans.

  29. 29
    AkaDad says:

    If you remove the Liberal bias from that chart, Romney has better approvals than Gandhi.

  30. 30
    Violet says:

    I think Gingrich is mostly done, except for maybe a few states in the South. Santorum really is the last Not Romney standing.

    Romney could, theoretically, pick a Palinesque VP to help grind up some red meat and inspire the uninspired base.

    It wouldn’t work a second time. The Village press doesn’t like Romney like they did McCain. They won’t give him the same pass they gave McCain.

    Welcome back!

  31. 31
    zmulls says:

    The parallels to 1984 are apt. Mondale was the “expected” candidate but the base was unenthused about him. Everyone shrugged and figured he was next in line and he was going to win anyway; but there were huge objections from the ‘base.’ I remember seeing a protest close to the convention of women chanting “Run With A Woman” while Mondale was forced to stand there grinning like an idiot waiting for them to stop. (And of course, he nominated Geraldine Ferraro.

    The incumbent in 1984 was affable and likeable, and yet there was a strong contingent in the opposing party who spit when they heard his name and considered him to be one of the worst, and most destructive, Presidents of all time. He was considered a fascist who was destroying America, by a lot of people.

  32. 32

    Or, *because of* their bizarre hatred of the president, the GOP has failed to field a candidate they like who America might like. They abandoned all previous policy beliefs to rail against economic stimulus, the individual mandate, etc. that can get you some wins in Congress, thanks to the wonder-working power of resentment, but no one can look presidential that way. Not a longtime standard-bearer like Newt, nor a notorious flip-flopped like Mitt. *Everyone* has a suspect, deviationist past.

  33. 33
    Martin says:

    @shirleyujest: Wait until Mitt is done carpet bombing Santorum. That may return Noot back to ‘least hated’ status and trigger a resurgence.

    Favorables are how you build momentum, and normally in a primary, somebody’s favorables go up as voters get to know them and they accumulate support and the party rallies behind them. That’s what happened in 2008. Hillary had the early favorables, but as the campaign wore on, Obama’s went up and he managed to keep them high all the way through. Both candidate’s unfavorables went up as well, that’s inevitable, and that created at least a minor schism in the party.

    These guys have no favorables. They’re all unfavorables. There’s nobody to rally behind, so they’re going to keep jumping around to whoever is the least odious this week. These SuperPACs are paying dividends for Obama.

  34. 34
    Yevgraf says:

    Fuck. Does this mean I have to wade through her word salad again?

  35. 35
    geg6 says:

    @eemom:

    Yeah, I ain’t buying it. I did that the last time and lived to regret it.

  36. 36
    Shalimar says:

    I am rooting for Gingrich to wreck maximum havoc at this point. He can’t beat Romney, but I think Santorum could if Gingrich dropped out. And that scares the crap out of me. Santorum’s massive baggage of crazy is much harder to highlight effectively in simple ads.

  37. 37
    Carnacki says:

    All good news for John McCain

  38. 38
    geg6 says:

    @Elizabelle:

    Bill Maher. That was Bill Maher.

  39. 39
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @Martin: “Wait until Mitt is done carpet bombing Santorum.”

    That is going to be one frothy mess to behold.

  40. 40
    harlana says:

    keep singin’, Mr. President!

  41. 41
    Martin says:

    @zmulls: Yeah, I think 1984 may be the model here. Mondale wasn’t hugely popular, but his favorability was at least in positive territory as the primaries wound down. It wasn’t until the general campaign that his unfavorables went up and he ended in 30/50 or thereabout territory and got massacred.

    All of these guys are starting in 30/50 territory. Santorum is still 30/30 or so – he’s not liked, he’s just not as disliked. We’ll see where that goes, but given how much bigger Mitt’s SuperPAC hammer is than Santorum’s microphone, I expect Santorum will join Newt and Mitt int he 30/50 club soon.

  42. 42
    Warren Terra says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    I like this notion of ED Kain’s: Mr Frothy/Noot as a sort of Catholic Zaphod Beeblebrox. It has much symbolic potential, which I am sure the Juicitariat will be only too eager to realize.

    Indeed. Someplace in the Hitchhiker books it is revealed that Zaphod has been chosen to run for Galactic President because he is a likeable, vapid, and entertaining clown capable of distracting the people from what the venal and evil powerful people who actually run the galaxy are up to. Ronald Reagan, in other words, with a strong infusion of Sarah Palin.

    PS I suppose we should welcome Kain back, hoping he is at least the anodyne commenter we see in this post, or perhaps better, and that the glibertarian and shallow tendencies he so nauseatingly demonstrated in his early Balloon Juice posts are well and truly a thing of the past.

  43. 43
    geg6 says:

    @zmulls:

    there was a strong contingent in the opposing party who spit when they heard his name and considered him to be one of the worst, and most destructive, Presidents of all time. He was considered a fascist who was destroying America, by a lot of people.

    Um, probably because he was?

  44. 44
    harlana says:

    @Martin: don’t you think, as far as the “conservative brand” goes, at least these days, that Mitt has a lot more baggage than Santorum? it’s going to be hard, imo, for Mitt to go after him effectively and keep appealing to teabaggers at the same time – a couple of things here and there but nothing compared to Mitt’s pile

  45. 45
    geg6 says:

    @Shalimar:

    Santorum’s massive baggage of crazy is much harder to highlight effectively in simple ads.

    Are you shitting me with this? Seriously? The guy who lost PA by almost 18 points?

    You probably scream in the haunted house at the local amusement park, too.

  46. 46
    Yevgraf says:

    @Shalimar:

    Santorum’s massive baggage of crazy is much harder to highlight effectively in simple ads.

    Mittens’ check writers are all a’flutter with apprehension – to take out Savonarola, they’re going to have to go after him on all his weirdness. Thing is, that weirdness is the fondestly and fervently desired wish list of the Fundevangelicals and Opus Dei sorts that drive the SoCon wing of the right.

    Combining the fact that Savonarola is the white Alan Keyes (whom Obama destroyed because of all the weirdness) and can’t expect the “he’s white” bump to get the GOP over the hump, they’ve also got the fear that the guy is a creepy little shit with protofascist tendencies.

    That’s what they get for funding red meat jihads over the past couple of decades – epistemic closure tends to create the sort of candidacies that Savonarola and Leeeeeeroy Jeeeeenkins are running.

  47. 47
    Tractarian says:

    it’s almost not even worth talking about anyone in the Republican field except Romney – the race is still his to lose as far as I’m concerned.

    I used to agree; now, not so sure. Mitt has shown himself capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Plus, things have changed dramatically since the primary season actually started. @Ron Beasley nails it: the reason Mitt was considered the prohibitive favorite is because the GOP “establishment” and at least part of the base knew he had the best chance to beat Obama. But that’s gone now – kaput. His favorables have just fallen off a cliff, especially among so-called independents.

    (And I think that’s primarily due to Mitt’s own missteps, rather than the improving economy; that is to say, even if the economy takes a turn for the worse, swing voters still won’t like or trust him.)

    With apologies to Newt, Romney is a fundamentally different candidate then he was before December 2011. For that reason, I think Santorum has a decent shot, not only to capture the bible-thumping base, but also to sway GOP “establishment” types who figure, hey, if we’re going to nominate someone unelectable, he should at least be a real conservative.

    Here’s the kicker – Santorum isn’t unelectable. After all, he has far more experience as an elected official (4 years in the House, 12 in the Senate) than Obama did in 2008 (7 years in the IL Senate; 3 in the U.S. Senate). And he has what Mitt doesn’t – the enthusiastic support of evangelical right-wingers, the demographic that almost single-handedly delivered the White House to George W. in 2004.

  48. 48
    RossInDetroit says:

    Toxic coat tails. That’s what I’m hoping for. By 11/2012 I want the GOP candidate to be so hated/uninspiring/unattractive that he drives down turnout significantly. I don’t consider Obama’s reelection a done deal but I also want to see the Dems benefit from an enthusiasm gap like the one in 2008 that drove all those TP nutballs into office for the GOP.

  49. 49
    chopper says:

    @jibeaux:

    romney is just terrible at faking having conservative bona fides. i mean, he’s pretty terrible at campaigning overall too. but jesus, when he tries to turn on the ‘tough guy right winger’ persona it just falls flat.

    he was really hoping to lock this up early enough so he could pivot and move toward the center, which is the standard playbook move in these situations. unfortunately, a different primary calendar plus a GOP that’s still hesitating to get behind him means he’s likely going to have to continue beating this right-wing dead horse for a while.

    which means the inevitable pivot becomes harder and harder to sell. he’s much more comfortable trying to sell himself to the center but he can’t do that until the GOP is willing to enthusiastically stand behind him and it’s all a lock. i don’t think that will ever really happen (seriously, can you imagine conservatives excited enough to volunteer to go door to door for this guy?) to the degree he needs it too.

  50. 50
    Steve says:

    I like E.D.’s posts, even though I often disagree. Then again, I’m the sort of person who doesn’t think Bradley Manning should win the Nobel Peace Prize, so your mileage may vary.

  51. 51
    RossInDetroit says:

    There are at least 2 major factors that can’t be completely evaluated at this point:

    1) The impact of CU money on the nomination race. This is new territory and we cant assess how much of an impact coordinated ‘uncoordinated’ spending will have. Might not amount to much or it might be decisive. We’ll see.

    2) Veep pick. Considering all of the candidates’ personal negatives, who they have at their side could have a big impact.

  52. 52

    Marco Rubio jumped headfirst into the war on women’s reproductive rights by proposing any employer be allowed to forego birth control coverage due to “religious objections.”

    If this whole thing goes the way I expect, signing up to be the poster boy for anti-contraception religious inquisitions won’t make Rubio very attractive for vice-presidential prospects. Or not, let Romney snatch the Boy Wonder up now! :D

  53. 53
    geg6 says:

    @Tractarian:

    Here’s the kicker – Santorum isn’t unelectable. After all, he has far more experience as an elected official (4 years in the House, 12 in the Senate) than Obama did in 2008 (7 years in the IL Senate; 3 in the U.S. Senate). And he has what Mitt doesn’t – the enthusiastic support of evangelical right-wingers, the demographic that almost single-handedly delivered the White House to George W. in 2004.

    Like Shalimar, you are talking through your ass. Jeebus, you people who think this have never been exposed to more than five minutes of Frothy, have you?

  54. 54
    kindness says:

    Am I alone in thinking that Romney is going to offer up the Vice Presidency to Sanitorum in hopes of uniting the party?

  55. 55
    Shalimar says:

    @geg6: Pennsylvanians know the douchebag. The rest of the country would only get a few months. Hopefully I’m wrong. I wasn’t paying close attention to Pennsylvania when he lost. But fetus love and K Street greed and general weirdness seem more esoteric to me than all of the Romney and Gingrich negatives.

  56. 56
    E.D. Kain says:

    @jibeaux: that is a peculiar shortcoming on their part. How can we expect them to take that call at 3AM if they can’t even get their names on primary ballots???

  57. 57
    E.D. Kain says:

    @Steve: Bradley Manning is going to win the Nobel Peace Prize?

  58. 58
    Jon says:

    Sorry, Romney doesn’t have the delegates unless he starts getting better margins.

  59. 59
    burnspbesq says:

    According to Ed Kilgore, Santorum said this at a campaign event in Colorado:

    “We went into a recession in 2008. People forget why. They thought it was a housing bubble. The housing bubble was caused because of a dramatic spike in energy prices that caused the housing bubble to burst,” Santorum told the audience. “People had to pay so much money to air condition and heat their homes or pay for gasoline that they couldn’t pay their mortgage

    I am in awe of the stupidity.

  60. 60
    E.D. Kain says:

    @Violet: thanks! I agree that Gingrich is done, but I don’t think he will agree, or go quietly. This will keep the vote divided enough to make Santorum even more of a non-entity than he already is.

  61. 61
    Steve says:

    @E.D. Kain: Not if soonergrunt and I have anything to say about it!

  62. 62
    JGabriel says:

    E.D. Kain @ Top:

    All that Santorum’s win Tuesday achieved was to further split the not-Romney vote. That doesn’t hurt Romney – if anything it helps him.

    Right. Losing primaries and caucuses is the time-honored path to the GOP presidential nomination. John McCain lost 19 of ’em! And if it’s good for John McCain, then it’s good for Mitt Romney! I mean, just look at how well John McCain did when he got to the general election.

    Well, okay, maybe that’s not the best example.

    Romney is flush with cash, a well-organized campaign, and the support of the Republican Establishment.

    And with all those advantages, Romney still can’t win Colorada, Minnesota, or Missouri in a four way against Ricky “Man on Dog” Santorum, Ron “I named my son after Ayn Rand” Paul, and Newt “Fucking” Gingrich.

    Oh, before I forget: Hey, Erick! Welcome back to the front page!

    You really should post here more often, if only to keep yourself from making easily mocked arguments like the above in more widely read settings.

    Romney’s real problem is President Obama.

    Well, at least we agree on that. Eventually, anyway. If Mitt makes it that far.

    Seriously, though, it’s good to see you ’round these parts again.

    .

  63. 63
    Frankensteinbeck says:

    I still think money is a crucial NEGATIVE for Romney here. Every dollar spent by his opponents is a dollar not going to him. For every dollar lost that way he spends three fighting back. This is money he needs for the general. CU is proving to be its own worst enemy.

  64. 64
    artem1s says:

    Noot was trying out the Guiliani gambit yesterday in Ohio…

    a noun, a verb, + 9/11 + Iran nuclear weapons program = 350,000 dead in Cincinnati.

    NPR was running the clip this morning. It was the leap from Iran attempting to developing weapons grade plutonium to having a warhead capable of reaching Ohio that made it truly art.

  65. 65
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @E.D. Kain:

    He’s been nominated by some fan of his in the Icelandic parliament.

    Making a public deal about such a nomination is the kiss of death for the Nobel committee, though.

  66. 66

    @mistermix … World Peace:

    How about this: Romney has the best-organized campaign of the Republicans who are left. I think that’s both true and bad news for Republicans.

    I would completely agree with that. Which is why it is so delightful to watch these assholes shriek with impotent rage every day.

    They know the hand they have to play sucks in a major way.

  67. 67
    Jim C says:

    @Tractarian:

    Here’s the kicker – Santorum isn’t unelectable. After all, he has far more experience as an elected official (4 years in the House, 12 in the Senate) than Obama did in 2008 (7 years in the IL Senate; 3 in the U.S. Senate).

    Hm. Correct me if I’m somehow wrong, but I think you are … neglecting? … 3+ years of Obama experience as an elected official.

    I’ll let you think about that.

  68. 68
    Birthmarker says:

    I expect at this juncture folks in the deep south will go Santorum.

    Also remember that it came out that
    Santorum was’t actually living in Pennsylvania. I’ll let the Pennsylvanians tell how much that hurt him.

  69. 69
    Violet says:

    @E.D. Kain:
    I agree Gingrich won’t go quietly, but I think the evangelical voters aren’t going to buy his brand of crazy anymore. Newt peaked in SC with the bullying debates and Mitt’s poor preparation in not having attack ads ready to fight him. But Florida showed that Newt flails and collapses when people push back against him. It makes him look weak and people don’t like a loser.

    So unless Newt has a series of kickass debates (and there aren’t nearly as many debates now as there were before) and has the chance to show his pugnacious side again, he’s going to come across as a wimpy, pudgy, loser, while Santorum has all the momentum coming out of his three state win.

    Gingrich will definitely be around through Super Tuesday, but I don’t expect he’ll do as well as he might think he will.

  70. 70
    Tractarian says:

    @geg6:

    Like Shalimar, you are talking through your ass.

    Really? All I said was that Santorum has (1) more experience as an elected official than Obama did in 2008 and (2) he has the enthusiastic support of evangelical right-wingers.

    What part of that do you disagree with?

    Fact is, Santorum got trounced in 2006, a wave election for Democrats. He got beated in large part because he embraced W. who was at his nadir of popularity at the time. Those conditions simply will not be in place this year.

  71. 71
    cckids says:

    @jibeaux:

    that little teensy problem where the more people learn about Romney the less they like him.

    The more people learn about or see ANY of the Republican candidates, the less they like them.

    Think about it – Gingrich’s history & general asshattery, Santorum’s (barely) hidden hatred of contraception & women’s rights, Paul’s outright nutjob beliefs . . . it isn’t as though one of them just has some surface cosmetic problem. The more you research their policy ideas, the more horrifying they become.

  72. 72
    Elizabelle says:

    @geg6:

    Thank you. Shall hunt for it later.

  73. 73
    geg6 says:

    @Tractarian:

    Santorum lost by a margin much larger than what can be explained by the wave election explanation. Little Ricky has much the same problem that Romney has in that the more people get to know him, the more they dislike him. And that’s before all the Opus Dei, ripping off taxpayers in PA and Penn Hills, K-Street, babies on the mantel, man-on-dog, Google problem stuff hits the general public.

    I live here. People hate him. Even where I live, Bluedog/Teabagger heaven, people hate him.

  74. 74
    Mobile Grumpy Code Monkey says:

    jibeaux @ 17

    That’s what you get for spending the last decade promoting ideological purity over basic competence. It’s getting to the point where they can’t wipe their own asses without screwing up.

  75. 75
    FormerSwingVoter says:

    Wait, E.D. Kain is back?

    Welcome back! I’m sure we’ll still disagree on many things, but I’ll be gentler this time around ;)

  76. 76
    Violet says:

    @Birthmarker:

    I expect at this juncture folks in the deep south will go Santorum.

    Agreed. The evangelicals and other wingnuts want to be heard. They recognize that if they unite behind a candidate, they have more power. Newt has proved he’s a loser with his crash and burn in Florida. Santorum lives his values a lot more so than Newt does (one wife, not three, plus bonus special needs daughter) and that sort of thing is attractive to them.

    I expect Santorum to win many but not all of the Southern states. Newt will likely win Georgia. Not sure about the others.

    Newt is finished. He just won’t admit/can’t see it yet.

  77. 77

    And of course Ron Paul has his base of support which will likely neither grow nor dwindle in the coming months.

    Also, I think this is the point where we say “nice to know that you are no longer a part of that base of support, E.D.”

    Because you definitely were.

  78. 78
    Maude says:

    @harlana:
    #44 Mitt’s baggage barks. Hard to hide it.
    Obama should be singing Stuck in The Middle With You.

  79. 79
    Tractarian says:

    @geg6:

    Little Ricky has much the same problem that Romney has in that the more people get to know him, the more they dislike him.

    And yet, he still has (1) more experience as an elected official than Obama did in 2008 and (2) the enthusiastic support of evangelical right-wingers.

    Which, even with all of his baggage, might still make him more electable than Romney at this point.

  80. 80
    JGabriel says:

    @Tractarian:

    Fact is, Santorum got trounced in 2006, a wave election for Democrats. He got beated in large part because he embraced W. who was at his nadir of popularity at the time.

    As someone with family in Pennsyltucky, I think it’s more accurate to say that Santorum got beat in 2006 because he was an asshole.

    Seriously. No one I talked to — and these are pretty typical Pennsyltuckians, not commie libtards like me — could understand how he even got elected to a second term. Santorum was deeply unpopular in PA, as the outsized scale of his loss indicates. It wasn’t due only to the 2006 Dem wave.

    .

  81. 81
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @FormerSwingVoter: Kain never completely left. This isn’t the first time he’s posted since he went to his new gig.

  82. 82
    Cargo says:

    Hoocodanode that strict campaign finance regulations actually benefitted campaigning politicians, and that removing them all could have unforeseen consequences? HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? The Free Market was supposed to be perfect, all-knowing and flawless!!

  83. 83

    @Tractarian:

    And yet, he still has (1) more experience as an elected official than Obama did in 2008 and (2) the enthusiastic support of evangelical right-wingers.
    __
    Which, even with all of his baggage, might still make him more electable than Romney at this point.

    And this is why, at this stage in the game, I don’t think it’s crazy to expect Obama to facilitate a downticket blowout against Republicans.

    It gets worse for these clowns every. single. day.

  84. 84
    Steve says:

    Wasn’t one of the ongoing criticisms of E.D. that he never engaged with people in the comments? Also, too, every time I write E.D. I expect to be put into moderation.

  85. 85
    JGabriel says:

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    This is money [Romney] needs for the general.

    No, it’s not. Unfortunately.

    Romney and his backers have more cash than God to spare. Romney can spend as much as he wants in the primaries, and still have billions available afterwards to shovel into the general. And none of them, Romney or his backers, will ever miss it.

    .

  86. 86
    Martin says:

    @harlana:

    don’t you think, as far as the “conservative brand” goes, at least these days, that Mitt has a lot more baggage than Santorum?

    Yeah, I do. But I think it’s easier for the GOP to work around that. Santorums problem is that being honest to God an anti birth control crusader, that once that gets drawn out in the campaign, he’s going to scare the shit out of a lot of young people, women, and so on that at the very least believe in birth control for family planning purposes, if not because they love having a safe romp. You almost can’t help but wonder “What’s wrong with that guy? Is he secretly gay or something that he doesn’t like sex with his wife?” And Santorum comes off very judgmental as soon as we hit social issues, and honestly, nobody wants that.

    In Mitt’s case, yeah, his baggage is bad. Healthcare, tax policy in light of his wealth, Bain, shifting positions. That’s going to take a lot of tap-dancing, but when you look at the general election, I think the GOP knows they need some doubt there in order to win. The GOP base is now so far from the nation as a whole, that the GOP knows they need to tack back to the middle somehow – and I don’t think Santorum can do that. Newt certainly can’t. The GOP can’t win just on slave states alone. Romney at least plausibly could go after independents, but it’s going to be damn hard to hold any credibility doing it.

    I think they’re fucked no matter what, and I think they know they’re fucked no matter what. I think the bigger problem the establishment GOP has is that in 2010 they got their ass handed to them by the Tea Party. Nancy Smash has the easiest job in the world right now, because the Dems just sit back, watch the GOP fight between themselves, fail, and then there’s nothing for the Dems to negotiate with. The GOP needs the tea party out, probably more than anything, because they’re dead in the water on any agenda because of them. The GOP is now actually opposing tax cuts because of the tea party and considering introducing legislation to come out against birth control. They need to kill them now, and so they need to carry someone like Mitt through to the end, even if they get killed in the general.

  87. 87
    wrb says:

    @shirleyujest:

    it’s man on dog versus dog on car.

    There is only one dog though.

    Gonna be some pileups on the freeway.

  88. 88
    Legalize says:

    And Romney is flush with cash, a well-organized campaign, and the support of the Republican Establishment. He may not have the adoration of the now all-but-defunct Tea Party, but that hardly matters.

    I don’t know about that. Team Willard might be flush with cheddar, but I think its pretty clear that its amateur hour over there with respect to selling the candidate. And it might be the case that Weird Willard has the backing of the establishment, but to say that the Teatard base doesn’t matter, is belied by the exit polls. The Teatard base hates Weird Willard, and they vote in droves. Now it’s entirely possible that the establishment will hammer the base in to submission, but the effect would be twofold: (1) a dispirited base which would lead to a depressed get out the vote effort; and (2) a strengthened Obama due to his own increasingly energetic base, independents turned off by the GOP freak show, and an organization that hasn’t had to lift finger going after the opponent – right now thy get to throw spitballs from the sidelines, and it’s hilarious ….

  89. 89
    JGabriel says:

    @Steve:

    Wasn’t one of the ongoing criticisms of E.D. that he never engaged with people in the comments?

    Initially, for the first two months or so. Then he got better at it, and, even though we frequently disagreed with him, we welcomed the crazy conflicted liberaltarian amongst the Balloon Juice ranks.

    .

  90. 90
    gex says:

    @Steve: You probably haven’t seen him argue that it is worse to make banks show they have standing to foreclose on a property than it is to kick a family out of a home.

    Libertarian moral compasses are broken. I’ve seen EDK’s turn around, but I still just can’t get past the fact that his moral compass pointed in that direction. I mean, literally arguing the banks don’t need to actually have the right to foreclose in order to do so. If he ever has to reason a tricky situation out alone, I don’t trust him.

  91. 91
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Steve:

    You know, of all the front pagers here, ED is the most likely to actually engage in a dialog with the commenters, at least in my experience. He’d nearly always be willing to address comments on his posts, and in fact reverse himself on several occasions when commenters pointed out a flaw in his reasoning.

  92. 92
    Martin says:

    @JGabriel: Heh. My grandfather grew up on a farm in northeast PA and always called it Pennsyltucky. I haven’t heard anyone else call it that in ages.

  93. 93
    Mike Lamb says:

    @Tractarian: I don’t follow the logic that because Santorum was elected to public office on more occasions than Obama, he is therefore electable as President. It’s a non-sequitur. Especially when you consider his elections to the House. Cranks win House elections frequently.

  94. 94
    Maus says:

    Ron Paul has his base of support which will likely neither grow nor dwindle in the coming months.

    Yeah, there are plenty of pothead Republicans, but not so single-issue that they’ll vote Paul.

  95. 95
    Martin says:

    @Frankensteinbeck: Do the math. Obama’s proposed Buffet Rule would probably result in about $10B more in taxes per year paid by the GOPs biggest backers – from the Kochs to the Bain guys. If they can dump $1B into Romney’s SuperPAC coffers to secure an Obama loss, that’s a 10:1 return on their investment *per year* for at least the 4 years he’s in office. That’s a hell of a return, and I think they’ll pay up.

  96. 96
    General Stuck says:

    Here is what we all are up against

    Following speeches from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Rep. Michele Bachmann, CPAC is hosting the panel “The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening the American Identity” with Peter Brimelow, the founder and head of VDARE.com.

    In case you are wondering what VDARE is

    VDARE is a White Nationalist website, run by Brimelow, which frequently publishes the works of anti-Semitic and racist writers and is named after Virginia Dare, who is believed to be the first child of English parents born in the Americas. Brimelow, an immigrant from Great Britain, expresses his fear of the loss of America’s white majority, blames non-white immigrants for social and economic problems and urges the Republican Party to give up on minority voters and focus on winning the white vote. He also said that a New York City subway is the same as an Immigration and Naturalization Service waiting room, “an underworld that is not just teeming but also almost entirely colored.”

    After Charles Murray’s book, and now this at a mainstream conservative symposium, they are not even trying to hide it anymore. White Supremacy is the new conservative movement, and that is just peachy for David Brooks and co.

  97. 97
    E.D. Kain says:

    @JGabriel: you misunderstand me I think. If Santorum was Romney’s only rival and Gingrich was out, I think you’d be on to something. Romney would be in trouble. But that’s not the case. The anti-Romney vote is divided. My argument about the primary stands, and it is a separate argument from Romney’s chances in the general.

    And thanks also by the way.

  98. 98
    pragmatism says:

    the prodigal self proclaimed ombudsman returns. just joking E.D. enjoyed your stuff at forbes and amtimes. keep it up.

  99. 99
    Tractarian says:

    @Mike Lamb:

    Of course time spent in public office is relevant to electability.

    But fine, don’t consider Santorum’s House elections. He served two terms as Senator. He has the backing of evangelical right-wingers. What I’m saying is, those two things alone may make him more electable than Mitt right now, at least in the eyes of the GOP “establishment”.

  100. 100
    E.D. Kain says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: thanks, I try. I’ve been slightly absent during this thread (my apologies) while writing up a piece on the duo The Civil Wars at Forbes. But I’m back now.

  101. 101
    E.D. Kain says:

    @pragmatism: it took 97 comments to get to the ombudsman thing? I’m impressed. And thanks!

  102. 102
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Mike Lamb:

    For example, Ron Paul. As crank as they come.

  103. 103
    schrodinger's cat says:

    @General Stuck: No more compassion with conservatism, I guess.

  104. 104
    feebog says:

    @ Tractarian:

    Here’s the kicker – Santorum isn’t unelectable.

    OK, he has more experience than Obama had four years ago. That was four years ago. Frothy would be up against an incumbent President who has a pretty impressive string of accomplishments.

    Moreover, when people begin to learn what a total rightwing A hole this guy is, he is going to make Romney’s unfavorables look absolutely golden. This is a guy who not only opposes abortion under all circumstances (suck it up rape victims) but also opposes contraception. You think the gender gap is pretty wide now? Wait until people really get to know Santorum. Geg is absolutely right, Frothy is a smarmy, self rightious asshole. Obama should be so lucky as to draw him as the Republicn nominee.

  105. 105
    taylormattd says:

    ugh

  106. 106
    pragmatism says:

    @E.D. Kain: we can all (well mostly all) laugh about it now.

  107. 107
    Chris says:

    @General Stuck:

    Why am I not fucking surprised.

    But remember,

    1) They’re not racist.
    2) YOU’RE the REAL racist.
    3) They have black friends.
    4) Well, one black friend.
    5) Look, they listened to a hip hop song once, all right!

    Fuck these guys.

  108. 108
    Jewish Steel says:

    Off the top of my head I can think of 10 regular commenters here who could throw up a more interesting analysis than this. Thanks for yesterday’s news, ED!

  109. 109
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Knock on wood, no sign of the stalker so far.

    Oh, great, I just mentioned we had a no-hitter going…

  110. 110
    Rita R. says:

    @feebog:

    I commented elsewhere a few weeks back that if Santorum somehow wins the GOP nomination, it will be proof that God exists and is a Democrat. I’d now add “And a woman too.”

  111. 111
    Tractarian says:

    Moreover, when people begin to learn what a total rightwing A hole this guy is, he is going to make Romney’s unfavorables look absolutely golden

    I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. The way I see it, the nature of Santorum’s baggage is less damaging than Romney’s. Why? Because, for every moderate, middle-class voter that is turned off by Santorum’s extreme positions on abortion and gay rights, he stands to gain a hard-core evangelical vote. Romney? No one, anywhere, is going to vote for the man because of his baggage. It is pure negative.

    And, as everyone should know, there really aren’t that many genuine independents in this country. The vast majority identify (either weakly or strongly) with one of the two parties. In my view (and perhaps in the view of the GOP “establishment”), appeal to moderates and independents is overrated, especially if you have a nominee that can get your base excited.

  112. 112
    Judas Escargot, Your Postmodern Neighbor says:

    @General Stuck:

    I wonder how soon before they let Stormfront attend?

    Maybe next year…

  113. 113
    E.D. Kain says:

    @Jewish Steel: you’re very welcome.

  114. 114
    Rita R. says:

    @Tractarian:

    You’re mistaken if you think that even among hard-core evangelical women — or men for that matter — any more than a very small minority are going to be okay with Santorum’s position that states should have the right to outlaw, as in make illegal, birth control. And make no mistake about it, this is what team Obama would be talking about every single day until the election.

  115. 115
    AA+ Bonds says:

    C.R.E.A.M.


    The Money Man Behind Rick Santorum: Who Is Foster S. Friess?

    Friess is roughly 1,000,000 times more important to American politics than Rick Santorum

  116. 116
    JGabriel says:

    @E.D. Kain:

    You misunderstand me I think. If Santorum was Romney’s only rival and Gingrich was out, I think you’d be on to something. Romney would be in trouble.

    No, I’m not misunderstanding you. But Gingrich has won only one primary. Santorum has won four at this point, and Romney three.

    Romney is in trouble, particularly if social conservatives continue to band together behind Santorum. I think that’s what we were seeing in CO, MN, and MO, the other night.

    Whether or not that’s the case, I still find it amazing that with Romney’s money and organizational structure, he still managed to lose all three contests last Tuesday. It’s a bad sign for him no matter how, or from which angle, you look at it.

    We’ll see how things play out on Super Tuesday, but I’m expecting a very so-so night for Mitt. Negative advertising may persuade Romney’s opponents voters to stay home, but it won’t persuade many to vote for him.

    I think that is Romney’s biggest problem right now. Most GOP voters don’t think Romney can beat Obama, believe that Mitt is too moderate, too vulnerable on Romneycare, and they would rather lose ugly (Gingrich) or principled (Santorum, hilariously enough) than lose with a guy they don’t like and can’t root for.

    .

  117. 117
    AA+ Bonds says:

    I am really surprised that anyone here thinks Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum are important to talk about, since we now know their biggest Super PAC funders

    Come on, people, you’re better than this business where you chat about the light show for the Republicans as described to you by your TVs

  118. 118
    Jewish Steel says:

    @E.D. Kain: QED

  119. 119
    Paul in KY says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: The blog host doesn’t really interact with anyone much. I never held that against EDK.

  120. 120
    AA+ Bonds says:

    @JGabriel:

    Whether or not that’s the case, I still find it amazing that with Romney’s money and organizational structure, he still managed to lose all three contests last Tuesday. It’s a bad sign for him no matter how, or from which angle, you look at it.

    I was surprised but a little bit of thought showed me it wasn’t very amazing

    Clearly Rove went all in on SC and figured NH -> SC -> FL for Romney would seal it McCain 2008 style, which it probably would have

    But Adelson surprised Rove by matching Simmons with the big money dump for Gingrich in SC (note how I’m focusing on the genuinely important people here) and that was turned into successful anti-Romney messaging and so

    The whole Rove gameplan has been thrown and Romney has lost both clout with the press and the bump that comes with it, and is still up against Weekly Rival X

    Of course these states are pissingly small compared to the later-season Rove target states but if Romney had taken SC then no one would even care about who won them

  121. 121
    JGabriel says:

    @AA+ Bonds:

    I am really surprised that anyone here thinks Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum, since we now know their biggest Super PAC funders.

    But we’re not talking about Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum; we’re just using their names as metonymic shorthand for the respective SuperPACs they represent.

    .

  122. 122
    scav says:

    @JGabriel: Or, we’re entertaining the merest possibility that most people, when confronted with an aisle of diet soda options, don’t base their choice uniquely upon what they know of the brands’ advertising budgets.

  123. 123
    Mike Lamb says:

    @Tractarian: There is no way that there is a 1:1 correlation between his losses amongst “moderate, middle class voters” and his gains in hard core evangelicals. Santorum wouldn’t even carry Pennsylvania, and he would make some red states purple for at least one cycle. His positions simply cannot work on a national scale (and didn’t even work on the state-wide level).

  124. 124
    Tractarian says:

    any more than a very small minority are going to be okay with Santorum’s position that states should have the right to outlaw, as in make illegal, birth control

    I never said or implied that evangelical women would be OK with that policy, though I don’t see why they wouldn’t be, as a group. They’re evangelicals, after all – hard-core right-wing religious nutjobs – even if they happen to be women. You may have noticed that not all women support reproductive rights merely because they have two X chromosomes.

    In any case, I’d be willing to bet that even pro-choice evangelical women would probably be OK with Santorum as president – especially if they are aware of how difficult it would be to pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion (read: impossible).

  125. 125
    AA+ Bonds says:

    @JGabriel:

    Maybe we should just switch over to acronyms

    ROF/C: Restore Our Future/Crossroads (I realize that the CW is that Crossroads stays out of primaries but as you can tell I really fucking doubt it except for direct spending)

    RWBF: Red, White and Blue Fund

    WOF: Winning Our Future

  126. 126
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Paul in KY:

    I don’t expect any of the front pagers to interact with us, actually…I just think it’s a bonus. On a lot of blogs, the blog host has had his or her say upfront, and they leave it at that.

    Of course, having FPers jump into the comments only enhances the community, and makes the entire site more attractive, IMHO, so there’s that.

  127. 127
    AA+ Bonds says:

    @scav:

    No, they base it on the effects of advertising budgets, which is why RC Cola is pretty much dead

    Unless you think that people choose Coke or Pepsi based on their ability to tell them apart by taste

  128. 128
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Mike Lamb:

    Furthermore, Santorum is the guy who’s putting these issues front and center. No one is holding a gun to his head, he’s volunteering, what he thinks is a feature of his policy outlook.

    Go for it, Rih.

  129. 129
    AA+ Bonds says:

    BTW, Santorum’s page announced that he raised $1 million in the last 24 hours, which is chump change really but it’s the story he’ll be pushing

  130. 130
    scav says:

    @AA+ Bonds: But, the entire aise of diet drinks still exists despite the advertising budgets. and people still do hold to either orange flavored sugar water and not that purple flavored colored water despite there being shit-all difference between them. Amazing how personal shit and the uncontrollable still sneaks though. New Coke wasn’t elected. Advertising influences it does not control absolutely.

  131. 131
    grandpa john says:

    @Violet: Florida is not an example of how the rest of the deep south votes, the deep south is much more like SC than Fl.

  132. 132
    Tractarian says:

    @Mike Lamb:

    There is no way that there is a 1:1 correlation between his losses amongst “moderate, middle class voters” and his gains in hard core evangelicals.

    Keep in mind, I’m talking about Santorum’s performance relative to Romney. Romney is hemmorhaging support from moderates and independents; hence my belief that Santorum’s additional losses there won’t outweigh the extra votes from evangelicals. In case you haven’t noticed, evangelicals aren’t crazy about Mitt.

    Another thing to keep in mind: presidential elections are not entirely about policy. Americans twice elected a man (Reagan) who got his political start campaigning against the most popular social program in the country (SS). They also twice elected a man (W.) who proposed privatizing that popular program AND amending the constitution to ban gay marriage. So Santorum’s extreme positions on policy don’t necessarily make him unelectable.

  133. 133
    IM says:

    @Tractarian:

    A question: What extra votes? Do you really think there evangelicals who will defect from Obama to Santorum? If not, where will this extra votes come from, third parties?

  134. 134
    AA+ Bonds says:

    @scav:

    -_- how is there a diet version of any of these candidates, they’re all umbrella brands

  135. 135
    AA+ Bonds says:

    Another good part of the Coke/Pepsi analogy is to remember that sales aren’t everything, just as in that case – donors are also paying for access to the individuals, their infrastructure, their supporters, etc. after the candidate loses

    That’s one reason why I focus on top donors, because I believe much of this involves those donors consolidating power for future elections

  136. 136
    Birthmarker says:

    @Violet: My FB crew, pretty conservative, got incensed over Newt even being allowed to breathe air. And this was way before the wife no. 2 interview.

  137. 137
    Tractarian says:

    @IM: See@here. I’m talking about Santorum’s general election performance relative to Romney’s.

    That is, I’m saying there is non-negligible number of white evangelicals who won’t vote for Romney in the general election, but will vote for Santorum.

  138. 138
    pk says:

    E.D kain
    Last time I read something you wrote, you were supporting Ron Paul and thought he was not a racist. Out of curiosity, who are you supporting now?

  139. 139
    Steve says:

    @Tractarian: I don’t know if it’s quite right to say Reagan campaigned against Social Security. Are you sure you didn’t mean Medicare?

  140. 140
    Paul in KY says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: They certainly are not required to. I think in the best blogs, there is some interaction.

    Glenn will certainly ‘interact’ with you if you say something he thinks is stupid or you challange him & don’t have your facts airtight.

    Steve was also good about interacting, as was Eric Alterman when I used to frequent his site.

  141. 141
    Paul in KY says:

    @AA+ Bonds: I won $20.00 from an airman once by correctly differentiating between Coke/Pepsi 10 times in a row. They even tried messing me up by having 2 cokes in one iteration, etc.

    They don’t taste at all alike, to me.

  142. 142
    AA+ Bonds says:

    @Paul in KY:

    Neat, but statistically insignificant by all accounts

  143. 143
    tkogrumpy says:

    Without qualifiers or addendums, welcome back E.D. That is all.

  144. 144
    AA+ Bonds says:

    Without qualifiers, no more libertarian shit, E.D.

  145. 145
  146. 146
    Tractarian says:

    @Steve: Yeah, sorry for the brain fart.

  147. 147
    Frankensteinbeck says:

    @Martin:
    That math is wildly deceptive. We’re talking about people who belong to one of two groups: The greediest, short-sightedest sonsofbitches ever to be spawned, or rich nutcases like the Kochs. The latter are willing to spend unbelievable amounts of money, but they throw it only in crazy directions. They won’t just pour it onto Romney. The former are already going ‘ANOTHER million? What the Hell happened to the last million, Romney?’ even though they could give 100 million and hardly impact their finances. What people CAN spend is never what they WILL spend. It’s rarely even close. And neither number is remotely associated with what it would be to their advantage to spend. Rich people may be dumber about figuring that last number out than everyone else.

  148. 148
    Catsy says:

    @Tractarian:

    Here’s the kicker – Santorum isn’t unelectable.

    No, just stop there.

    Santorum is categorically unelectable at a national level. It’s just not going to happen. Ever.

    Like every other Republican still in the race this year, Santorum lacks two things that George Bush had in spades: personal likability, and the love of the press.

    Also, don’t underestimate the power of Santorum‘s Google Problem. If Santorum ends up on the GOP ticket, millions of people who have never heard of him before will Google his name for the first time. Guess what the first two links are?

    (Yeah, I’m happy to help with that one.)

    I actually discovered a new such person the other day. Longtime friend of mine, independent, smart and works in IT. But to my shock, he’d never looked Senator Frothy up on Google, or heard about that issue. This came up when he suggested that Santorum sounded like he wasn’t as clownish as Newt or loathsome as Romney. One look at the Google search and he cracked up, unable to take Santorum seriously any more.

    He is a crotch-sniffing busybody with right-wing social conservative views so extreme that he’d drive independents and women over to Obama in swarms. He has a long and documented history of saying insane shit, and he doesn’t have many friends in the media either.

    Nagunnahappen.

  149. 149
    uptown says:

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    Most super rich folks are really cheap, because they are scared of losing their money. Deep down, they know that is was just dumb luck that they got their riches in the first place and they could never do it again.

  150. 150
    Captain Howdy says:

    Why did Romney’s approval peak on or about Jan 1 ? And why that date for the beginning of the latest precipitous drop?

  151. 151
    Paul in KY says:

    @AA+ Bonds: My taste buds are da shit ;-)

  152. 152
    Paul in KY says:

    Evidently I must use a ‘pentangle’ or say her name 3 times into a mirror to do a proper summoning. Must say I am bummed.

  153. 153
    Samara Morgan says:

    oh goody. our resident free market fucktard and Ron Paul fellator is back.
    your new blog also failing Kain?

    you will never be on the Colbert Report.
    I sent Steven Colbert your “beyond unions” post.

  154. 154
    Samara Morgan says:

    @eemom: well that and his new blog is stinking up the blogverse.
    Speaking of nasty teratoma stillbirths.
    ;)

  155. 155
    Samara Morgan says:

    @pk: Kain supported Paul when he thought Obama was gunna lose…..and post-Paul Kain made a feint in GaJos general direction, but he is actually reserving his support for the winner.
    Which will be Obama.
    He will say he was for Obama all along.
    ;)

  156. 156
    Samara Morgan says:

    @E.D. Kain: we understand you perfectly you creepy little glibertarian slimebag.
    you trim your sails to whatever wind gets you the pageclicks.
    you quit your day job and you are gunna try making it as a blogger.
    but your new blog is just as crappy as the League of Extrordinarily Boring Glibertarians.

  157. 157
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Paul in KY: you have to use a blood offering if you want immediate response.

  158. 158
    eemom says:

    @Samara Morgan:

    Preach it, child.

    I detest glib opportunists almost as much as I detest paultards.

  159. 159
    Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony says:

    Rick Satanorum may be a hit with Northern, Midwestern, and Western evangelicals, but to Southern evangelicals, he is still a Yankee Catholic. True, Southern evangelicals are less hostile to the “non-Christian, idol worshiping” Catholics than they used to be. (Quotes based on things I heard Southern preachers say when I was growing up). But make no mistake that they would take fake-Catholic, good ole boy Newt over Ricky in a heartbeat.

  160. 160
    E.D. Kain says:

    @pk: can’t we throw them all out?

    More seriously, I will vote Obama this time around. I think Paul’s views on war are very welcome, but his involvement in the newsletters are disqualifying.

  161. 161
    Cap'n Magic says:

    @E.D. Kain: I agree: when you go into the booth, you vote for anyone who doesn’t have the incumbent by their name. But to be effective, it has to be result with over a 50% turnover ratio-ideally 100% but a swing of 50+ seats just keeps things more of the same. A true anti-incumbency would indeed put a fear into the reps-but once their in nothing stops the patronage pandering from continuing.

  162. 162
    Samara Morgan says:

    @E.D. Kain: switching horses naow, right Kain?
    now that you see the GOP is doomed this time around.
    you were a Paultard and a GaJo fanboi.
    how are you going to deal with your sneaky Obama hatred?

  163. 163
    Samara Morgan says:

    @Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony: its relative.
    yankee catholics are preferrable to mormon cultists.

  164. 164
    Paul in KY says:

    @Samara Morgan: Yay! It worked. Now smite him!

  165. 165
    Paul in KY says:

    @Samara Morgan: Dammit. Forgot about that. Thanks for clueing me in.

    (mutters to self) ‘Must use blood, must use blood…’

  166. 166
    Samara Morgan says:

    the smiting is going down on the “conservatives cant do pop culture thread”.

    i will cliff notes this whole post for the juicitariat.
    Shorter Kain: Obama is going to beat these clowns so i am jumping ship now. click over to my new blog so i can earn a living blogging.

  167. 167
    Samara Morgan says:

    the smiting is going down on the “conservatives cant do pop culture thread”.

    i will cliff notes this whole post for the juicitariat.
    Shorter Kain: Obama is going to beat these clowns so i am jumping ship now. click over to my new blog so i can earn a living blogging.

Comments are closed.