Politics 2012: The GOP Nominating Race

[OldPhiKap]

Same for Gingrich, so at this point it's a battle of ideology and Romney is the one with the ideas the voters seem to more uniformly feel willing to stand behind.

I'm not so sure.

Gingrich esposes the ideas that the party likes, but he is a very imperfect vessel.

Romney looks like the perfect straight-from-casting candidate, but lots of folks don't trust the convictions of what he says.


I don't think I am saying anything controversial here, but apologize if someone takes it that way. That seems to be the internal struggle that is playing itself out.


As far as the PAC-hit on Romney -- it may only air once or twice, but MSNBC will dissect it for days and there will be internet clips buzzing around for some time. It may be a waste of money, but Newt's not going down with powder still dry.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Going out on a strong, safe looking limb here...assuming that Romney is indeed the nominee, when does Obama start campaigning? Romney has essentially been campaigning against the president since before Iowa; he rarely attacks his GOP rivals (although as Newt points out, his pacs sure do) and focuses instead on the man in office. By the time the Republican convention rolls around, Romney will have had the entire winter and spring at his back with a well formed message and a definitive target.
At what point does Obama start making his own case? I mean publicly..with focused speeches and ads that set his agenda for the next four years.

[77devil]

Going out on a strong, safe looking limb here...assuming that Romney is indeed the nominee, when does Obama start campaigning? Romney has essentially been campaigning against the president since before Iowa; he rarely attacks his GOP rivals (although as Newt points out, his pacs sure do) and focuses instead on the man in office. By the time the Republican convention rolls around, Romney will have had the entire winter and spring at his back with a well formed message and a definitive target.
At what point does Obama start making his own case? I mean publicly..with focused speeches and ads that set his agenda for the next four years.

I thought he already had. But if there's any doubt, it starts now.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-to-step-down/

[JasonEvans]

It is still January, so I doubt Obama is in any great rush to start launching ads that hammer Romney. Yes, he is putting his election team in place, but I doubt we see the President publicly campaigning just yet. He's got many millions to spend during the pre-convention season and will likely do so when we are much closer to the election. I suspect that after Romney wraps things up for sure, likely on Super Tuesday, both sides will go into a bit of a quiet mode for a couple months as they gear up for the real battle.

Also, as President, Obama has a huge advantage in that he can make national news a lot easier than Romney can. For example, on January 24th at 9pm, all the networks will devote an hour or so of their prime-time coverage to watching him make the State of the Union. You can bet he will be talking about stuff that goes beyond the next 12 months in that speech.

-Jason "battling an incumbent is always tough -- they are 3-1 over the past 25 years" Evans

[77devil]

It is still January, so I doubt Obama is in any great rush to start launching ads that hammer Romney. Yes, he is putting his election team in place, but I doubt we see the President publicly campaigning just yet.He's got many millions to spend during the pre-convention season and will likely do so when we are much closer to the election. I suspect that after Romney wraps things up for sure, likely on Super Tuesday, both sides will go into a bit of a quiet mode for a couple months as they gear up for the real battle.

Also, as President, Obama has a huge advantage in that he can make national news a lot easier than Romney can. For example, on January 24th at 9pm, all the networks will devote an hour or so of their prime-time coverage to watching him make the State of the Union. You can bet he will be talking about stuff that goes beyond the next 12 months in that speech.

-Jason "battling an incumbent is always tough -- they are 3-1 over the past 25 years" Evans

I guess it depends how you define publically campaigning. I believe in substance over form. IMO, the substance of the public appearances of the POTUS for the last few months has been the campaign in large part.

[hurleyfor3]

Results are in from Dixville Notch! Romney and Huntsman each get two votes. Paul and Gingrich each get one vote. And you thought Iowa was close.

[OldPhiKap]

Results are in from Dixville Notch! Romney and Huntsman each get two votes. Paul and Gingrich each get one vote. And you thought Iowa was close.

"As goes Dixville Notch, so goes Dorchester"

[JasonEvans]

"As goes Dixville Notch, so goes Dorchester"

Nate Silver says...

"Things less useful than Dixville Notch for making predictons: 1) The BCS formula; 2) A Zogby Interactive poll. That is all."

-Jason "New Hampshire is a yawner - nothing happens today to change anything, I think... but I would love to be wrong!" Evans

[OldPhiKap]

-Jason "New Hampshire is a yawner - nothing happens today to change anything, I think... but I would love to be wrong!" Evans

I think the only real stories would be (1) if Romney doesn't crack, say, 35%; and/or (2) a strong rally behind someone into second (other than RP, who I think has a range of ceiling and floor no matter where he goes).

Heard Newt on Morning Joe as I rode into work this morning -- his attack on Bain is pretty articulate, actually. Not an attack on capitalism, but rather brought up the example of some company that (according to Newt) Bain put $30 milion into it; took out $180 million; and bankrupted the company leaving the workers behind. Discussed difference in growth capitalism versus pirate/raider capitalism (my words, not his).

I will be very interested to see how Romney does in SC; he will either put it away or else he won't see his shadow and will have another six weeks of campaigning.

[KenTankerous]

I am so excited that this discussion has gone on some 16 pages with the respect and civility that apparently can only be maintained on a Duke sports forums off-topic page. NPR got nothin' on us, y'all!

So I am probably more left leaning than anyone who has ever graced, or greased, these pages. I'm a feminist, an abortion clinic escort, straight but not narrow, recycling, attended Ted Kennedy's funeral - tearfully- kind of patriotic American. But I am offended and a little embarassed at the attacts on Karen Santorum. Her sex life, her reproductive health decisions, her current contraception option are none of our business and should have absolutely no bearing on how we pick the next Republican to lose to Barack Obama in November.

I think we need to call this crap out right NOW. We have crossed a line here that needs to be off-limits in political discourse.

Right?

Or am I over-reacting?

[Mal]

I think Newt's PAC is wasting its money. First, how many GOP primary voters are going to sit through a 30 minute hit job? Second, there is plenty of good data to support Romney's record at Bain. (Today's WSJ took a swing at Mitt and whiffed in my opinion.) Third, the populist message may work in the general election coming from the other side, but not within the free enterprise GOP. Even as a democratic tactic, there's Solyndra and that pesky GM bailout in which many jobs and benefits were sacrificed in order for the company to live long and prosper.

I both agree and disagree here. On the first point, from the perspective of winning the GOP primary, you're right, although anything Gingrich does at this point is probably wasting money. From the perspective of changing the dynamics of the general election, he's absolutely making an impact, however. Progressives are leaping for joy and grabbing the popcorn right now, hoping to see Gingrich continue to tear at Romney along these populist lines. The ad, along with Romney's foot-in-mouth moment about how he "likes being able to fire people," is getting a lot of attention, and the other candidates have jumped in, too. It may die down, but at the moment Romney as soulless capitalist raider is emerging as a legitimate meme. Newt's articulating what centrally animated OWS better than OWS itself ever did, providing a framing device for Democrats, and more importantly, providing cover for them to attack Romney on his businessman persona. This is the first time in years a Republican has attacked another Republican from the left, making fundamentally liberal points and in so doing opening the door for Democrats to do the same. Up until now, the teflon response to any Democrat who would come at Romney along these lines would be to either (a) call them a communist who doesn't believe in the free enterprise system, or (b) accuse them of waging class warfare, and it would go nowhere. Until now there was no reason to think that dynamic would change soon. Now, however, they can say "even Republicans aren't comfortable with the way this guy's made his fortune" and show clips of Gingrich, along with Perry and Huntsman ripping Romney about his pink slip comments. Gingrich, as a Republican, can do one thing that Democrats haven't been able to: preface his criticism by saying "Look, I'm all for capitalism, but..." and being believed. That opens another door for Democrats, to hit the frame of "hey, we're all for the free enterprise system in this country, but let's talk about limiting some of the unjust results..." and then point over at Romney as a walking symbol of what they're talking about. He's also articulating a succinct way of hitting at the difference between the fortune amassing of Steve Jobs and the fortune amassing of private equity and i-bankers, which I think, if carried on, could hit at an emotional core felt by a lot of the center of the electorate. So, I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that the populist message may work in the general election coming from the other side, but it wouldn't have if the Democrats had to open the door themselves.

From what I can tell, no one much cares (or even knows) about Solyndra outside of the online Right. And the contrast between investing money in start-ups for the purpose of boosting renewable energy and stimulating job growth vs. investing in companies for the primary purpose of getting a high r.o.i. for your investors is a softball the President would probably love to bandy about. I also think President Obama would be absolutely thrilled if Romney or his surrogates want to give him an opening to talk about the auto industry bailouts. They're a huge political win for Democrats right now, given the recovery Detroit's showing at the moment, and the fact that Romney was so outspoken about his belief they should all be bankrupted. I wouldn't be surprised if the President brings up recent data out of the U.S. automakers on his own at every opportunity this year.

[JasonEvans]

I am so excited that this discussion has gone on some 16 pages with the respect and civility that apparently can only be maintained on a Duke sports forums off-topic page. NPR got nothin' on us, y'all!

So I am probably more left leaning than anyone who has ever graced, or greased, these pages. I'm a feminist, an abortion clinic escort, straight but not narrow, recycling, attended Ted Kennedy's funeral - tearfully- kind of patriotic American. But I am offended and a little embarassed at the attacts on Karen Santorum. Her sex life, her reproductive health decisions, her current contraception option are none of our business and should have absolutely no bearing on how we pick the next Republican to lose to Barack Obama in November.

I think we need to call this crap out right NOW. We have crossed a line here that needs to be off-limits in political discourse.

Right?

Or am I over-reacting?

I'll be honest, Ken. I had not heard anything about it until you brought it up. It seems to be largely ignored by the mainstream media.

-Jason "this feels like something that might get a bit too partisan for our little community here, so it is probably best that it has not cropped up here.

[snowdenscold]

I'll be honest, Ken. I had not heard anything about it until you brought it up.

Same here. I agree w/ what Ken said in principle, but thankfully it seems to mostly be a non-issue.

[alteran]

-Jason "battling an incumbent is always tough -- they are 3-1 over the past 25 years" Evans

Tell that to GHWB, who had a 90% approval rating about 16 months before he had to start packing his things to leave the White House. His cardinal sin was being at the helm when the economy sputtered nowhere near as badly as it is right now.

This is one of those rare times when incumbency is over-rated.

[Mal]

This is one of those rare times when incumbency is over-rated.

Agreed. And funny how easy it was to predict 3+ years ago, too. The economy was at the beginning of what was pretty obviously going to be a long, major downturn that would take years to climb out of, and it wasn't difficult in 2008 to see there was a rather good chance anything short of a miraculous turnaround would hamstring either Obama or McCain come reelection time. I seem to recall some pundit at the time reminding us that it's the economy, stupid, and saying "This is a campaign to be a one term President."

[OldPhiKap]

Last time around, Hillary was "the inevitable one"


To quote a phrase -- "Oops."


Edit to add: After getting the Santorum banner ads a day or two ago, I'm now getting Ron Paul ads inviting me to click and see "why Santorum is a fraud." I guess my computer is still in the "undecided" column.

[Wander]

Last time around, Hillary was "the inevitable one"

Actually, I think statistically the biggest upset in 2008's primary season was Hillary winning in New Hampshire over Obama.

[hurleyfor3]

Agreed. And funny how easy it was to predict 3+ years ago, too. The economy was at the beginning of what was pretty obviously going to be a long, major downturn that would take years to climb out of, and it wasn't difficult in 2008 to see there was a rather good chance anything short of a miraculous turnaround would hamstring either Obama or McCain come reelection time. I seem to recall some pundit at the time reminding us that it's the economy, stupid, and saying "This is a campaign to be a one term President."

I wonder how efficacious it would be for Obama to copy FDR's re-election strategy in 1936. It was pretty much, "voting for Alf Landon will take us back to the policies of Hoover."

Now, Hoover's policies in 1930-32 weren't a whole lot different from FDR's later on, just a difference of degree. (It is absolutely untrue that Hoover did nothing, or that his polices were limited to having people sell apples on the streets, or whatever kids are taught today about Hoover. He orchestrated quite a bit of intervention in the affairs of businesses, set up the Reconstruction Finance Corp, initiated public works projects and so on.) But the public associated Hoover with the Depression starting and getting worse. So it worked.

We won't be completely out of the woods by November, but things won't be falling off a cliff like they were in the fall of 2008. Similar scenario to 1936 vs. 32 -- the bottom of the Depression is generally considered to be late-32 to mid-33.

Can Obama convey a message that "voting for Republican X will be voting for Bush 43" without a counterpoint that many of Bush's policies are in fact still in place? I mean, Fannie and Freddie are still around, both Bush and Obama oversaw massive bailouts and stimuli, the tax code and entitlement system hasn't been touched, et cetera. It think it might work to hold a lot of the swing states that haven't recovered strongly or have started to move to the left (OH, VA, CO) but not to pick up new states or hold on to states that are drifting right (FL).

And Jason, incumbents are 3-3 in the last six elections they have run. R's are 2-2, D's are 1-1. Nice manipulation of statistics. Unless you want to go back to 1936 too.

[OldPhiKap]

I wonder how efficacious it would be for Obama to copy FDR's re-election strategy in 1936. It was pretty much, "voting for Alf Landon will take us back to the policies of Hoover."

Now, Hoover's policies in 1930-32 weren't a whole lot different from FDR's later on, just a difference of degree. (It is absolutely untrue that Hoover did nothing, or that his polices were limited to having people sell apples on the streets, or whatever kids are taught today about Hoover. He orchestrated quite a bit of intervention in the affairs of businesses, set up the Reconstruction Finance Corp, initiated public works projects and so on.) But the public associated Hoover with the Depression starting and getting worse. So it worked.

We won't be completely out of the woods by November, but things won't be falling off a cliff like they were in the fall of 2008. Similar scenario to 1936 vs. 32 -- the bottom of the Depression is generally considered to be late-32 to mid-33.

Can Obama convey a message that "voting for Republican X will be voting for Bush 43" without a counterpoint that many of Bush's policies are in fact still in place? I mean, Fannie and Freddie are still around, both Bush and Obama oversaw massive bailouts and stimuli, the tax code and entitlement system hasn't been touched, et cetera. It think it might work to hold a lot of the swing states that haven't recovered strongly or have started to move to the left (OH, VA, CO) but not to pick up new states or hold on to states that are drifting right (FL).

And Jason, incumbents are 3-3 in the last six elections they have run. R's are 2-2, D's are 1-1. Nice manipulation of statistics. Unless you want to go back to 1936 too.

He's already been using Truman's "Do Nothing Congress" tact pretty effectively.



Putting any partisan feelings I may have aside, I sure hope you are correct in thinking that the economy will still be on the mend in the autumn. Not sure I'd bet that m'self.

[hurleyfor3]

He's already been using Truman's "Do Nothing Congress" tact pretty effectively.

I'm not certain how effective it's been, and anyway he runs the risk of being identified as part of the problem. It worked for Truman in '48, but I think the "elect me because Congress sucks" card is overrated today. People hate Congress but love their own Congressman, and it's been that way for years.

Putting any partisan feelings I may have aside, I sure hope you are correct in thinking that the economy will still be on the mend in the autumn. Not sure I'd bet that m'self.

Well I hope it gets better too, as I no longer live a countercyclical lifestyle. But Obama has to start marketing his strategy by the summer, so will necessarily face a few months of economic risk. BTW, if anypony wants to know what a real recovery looks like, go look up the nonfarm payroll numbers for 1983-84 or 1994 We're a long way away from that.