Iowa Primary

crackerjack

Well-known member
Apparently while campaigning in Michigan, Romney let slip his wife has two luxury Caddies. Then he attended a Nascar rally and admitted that he doesn't know much about the sport, but is interested cos some of his friends are Nascar owners.

He's determined to lose this election, isn't he.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Any predictions

newt won't win anywhere (maybe GA, still unlikely). he's done. do not rush to give santorum the heartland. don't hand him PA either. he lost the 2006 senate reelection campaign by a huge landslide, many people there hate him. winning MI big will maintain his viability but we won't really know where primary is headed til Super Tues.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
read op-ed the other day by kathleen parker (GOP intellectual) suggesting employer contraception controversy was strategic move by obama admin to shift election from economic to social issues. seems unlikely but works either way. other problem for whoever wins primary is that economy, while not good, is not as terrible as it was in 08 (auto bailout looking very good), harder to attack obama there.

republican nightmare of brokered convention looms
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
^can't imagine it happening but nothing's impossible. it'd be an unmitigated disaster for the gop. that's assuming jeb (or christie etc) even wanted any part of it, and why would they? the smart move is to wait for '16.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
there have been a few broker scares since the last one (Stevenson, 52), incl O + HC in 08, but all of them eventually fizzled. there's a good chance this one will too.
 

Leo

Well-known member
http://nymag.com/news/features/gop-primary-heilemann-2012-3/

from this week's ny magazine...the first 2/3rd of the article is stuff we mostly know about the toll this primary is taking on the GOP, the end is more interesting with what either a romney or a santorum loss will mean to the party's future.

What that would mean for the GOP would differ wildly depending on which of the two current front-runners, along with the coalition that elevated him to the nomination, is blamed for the debacle. “If Romney is the nominee and he loses in November, I think we’ll see a resurgence of the charismatic populist right,” says Robert Alan Goldberg, a history professor at the University of Utah and author of a biography of Barry Goldwater. “Not only will [the grassroots wing] say that Romney led Republicans down the road to defeat, but that the whole type of conservatism he represents is doomed.”

Goldberg points out that this is what happened in 1976, when the party stuck with Ford over Reagan, was beaten by Carter, and went on to embrace the Gipper’s brand of movement conservatism four years later. So who does Goldberg think might be ascendant in the aftermath of a Romney licking? “Sarah Palin,” he replies. “She’s an outsider, she has no Washington or Wall Street baggage, she’s electric—and she’s waiting, because if Romney doesn’t win, she will be welcomed in.”

But if it’s Santorum who is the standard-bearer and then he suffers an epic loss, a different analogy will be apt: Goldwater in 1964. (And, given the degree of the challenges Santorum would face in attracting female voters, epic it might well be.) As Kearns Goodwin points out, the rejection of the Arizona senator’s ideology and policies led the GOP to turn back in 1968 to Nixon, “a much more moderate figure, despite the incredible corruption of his time in office.” For Republicans after 2012, a similar repudiation of the populist, culture-warrior coalition that is fueling Santorum’s surge would open the door to the many talented party leaders—Daniels, Christie, Bush, Ryan, Bobby Jindal—waiting in the wings for 2016, each offering the possibility of refashioning the GOP into a serious and forward-thinking enterprise.

Only the most mindless of ideologues reject the truism that America would be best served by the presence of two credible governing parties instead of the situation that currently obtains. A Santorum nomination would be seen by many liberals as a scary and retrograde proposition. And no doubt it would make for a wild ride, with enough talk of Satan, abortifacients, and sweater vests to drive any sane man bonkers. But in the long run, it might do a world of good, compelling Republicans to return to their senses—and forge ahead into the 21st century. Which is why all people of common sense and goodwill might consider, in the days ahead, adopting a slogan that may strike them as odd, perverse, or even demented: Go, Rick, go.
 
Last edited:

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
mitt's freaking pulled it out, somehow. victory for sane people/bummer for barry o + gang.

@Leo - don't think gop loss ensures sharp backlash. also palin has too much baggage. won't beat someone like christie.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
hilariously mitt won mackinac county by one vote, 667 to santorum's (wait for it) 666. to no one's surprise, the devil sides with romney.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Seen Arizona and Michigan (especially) were close between Mitt and Santorum but what percentage did Newt and Paul get? I guess only twenty percent or so between them but I'd still like to know.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
What Romney should do is choose Sarah Palin as his VP running mate.

Give me a call, Mitt, I'll be your aide.
 

Bangpuss

Well-known member
Just when you thought mad old Uncle Ron was drifting back into obscurity: Bam! He comes out with the best political ad since Lee Atwater was throwing bombs at his boss's rivals:

The fact that a GOP contender dares to compare US troops abroad to a Chinese communist invading force is pretty remarkable. Blows all that American Exceptionism shit that the mainstream of American politics has been peddling since Year Dot right out of the water. Finally we see some moral equivalence, and not just from the far-left liberal do-gooders.
 

Bangpuss

Well-known member
Of course moral equivalence is a good thing. It's saying that when America unlawfully invades a country, that's no different from another country doing it to America. It's about America's actions not being excused or downplayed just because it's America committing them.
 

Leo

Well-known member
Seen Arizona and Michigan (especially) were close between Mitt and Santorum but what percentage did Newt and Paul get? I guess only twenty percent or so between them but I'd still like to know.

AZ: Newt 16%, Paul 8%
Mich: Newt 6%, Paul 11%

newt is done, might make some noise in the south but not enough to matter. paul continues his bromance with romney.
 
Top