Monday, December 19, 2011
Herewith, the latest Intrade futures on the relative prospects of Mitt and Newt in the Iowa presidential caucuses in a couple of weeks.
Oh, there's nothing halfway
About the Iowa way to treat you,
When we treat you
Which we may not do at all.
Newt's losing momentum. But he still has big leads in South Carolina and Florida. Ron Paul could win Iowa.
The odds still say we end January with Newt #1 in delegates. Ron Paul could be #2.
If so, that doesn't mean Newt will be -- or should be -- the nominee.
It would say that Mitt's not selling well. At this point, Mitt's isn't doing any better than he did in 2008 when he had much tougher competition.
I'll shut up when Mitt starts climbing in the national polls, rather than just others falling. Newt and Perry have already been over 30%. Mitt has never been. Even against a field of carnival geeks.
Say what you want about Obama -- he's good at campaigning. Mitt clearly isn't.
Agreed, Ignoramus. If Romney takes the nomination Obama wins in a landslide--over 300 electoral votes, enough to claim a mandate.
Thought you would enjoy this Powerline post and the articles referenced therein.
If Romney wins the Nomination, Obama loses?
Where did we find such nonsense?
Oh my Anon Attorney, that is laughable.
It reminds me of someone who fully embraced the hype over the entrenched Beltway Insider named Newt, who claimed Gingrich's graft of 1.8 Million of Fannie and Freddie funds had no relevance. It was the ultimate in denial and contradiction - coming from someone who considered themselves a 'conservative'.
"ignoramus" was once pushing poll data, trying to ignore the ugly reality of the Gingrich offering. This commenter now says Newt is merely losing momentum? Only momentum?
Newt has been exposed by the spotlight again. He is still living double lives, trying to exploit Our Base, while he does the exact opposite to serve himself. And remains utterly dishonest about his ugly Washington Beltway influence peddling.
It grows more laughable every day, as the denial is so utterly not conservative in nature. It reveals the emotive fashion far too much, it becomes silly, like a comedy routine.
Ann Coulter, Sheriff Babeu, Gov. Haley, the Oklahoman, Gov. Christie, Bob Dole, John Hinderaker, Jack Welch, Mr. Ponnuru, Sen. Thune, T-Paw, etc., etc., all "catching on" to the reality Mr. Romney is the best offering who will not only defeat Obama in the General, has great potential to be a fine President:
"» Second, our economy is broken. Based on his long years of experience creating thousands of jobs here in the private sector, Romney knows how to fix the economy. As he says every day on the campaign trail, "government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does." To that end, he promises to cut individual and corporate taxes, reform the tax code to encourage growth and investment, and expand free trade. He pledges to slash unnecessary federal regulation and unleash America's vast energy resources to create jobs and free us from dependence on nations that are hostile to our country. He will, in short, follow in Reagan's footsteps to get America working again."
We know full well there exists some with dysfunctional religious bigotry, some hold resentment for a "wealthy" Free Market success, others are so lost in the fashionable game - they even have embraced as silly prejudice against the North East (or the West Coast).
They would have absolutely turned on Ronald Reagan, foolishly labeling the heroic Gipper as a mere RINO. It is sad, but the shell game some have tried to sell in the guise of the 'conservative' label is making a mess. But thankfully, sound minds and cooler heads seem to be leading the way to prevent another disastrous enabling of the Democratic Party again.
You have posted previously regarding the role the two FMs played in the housing bubble, essentially parroting the study the economic left uses to absolve the two FMs of their liability.
Interesting article from AEI today asserting that the two FM systematically lied about their exposure to subprime and alt-a loans.
Wake me when you have something to offer other than cheerleading for Romney. All these people endorsed McCain too--look how that turned out.
You can be a Robber Baron in the USA and then do most anything -- but run for public office!
But your kids can run for office. Just ask Joe Kennedy or chemical bilionaire Jon Huntsman, Sr. But you can't.
Mitt "Carried Interest" Romney is a latter-day Robber Baron.
I doubt that 5% of Americans have an even dim understanding of what "carried interest" is. I doubt that 1 in a hundred can explain it. That will change.
Here's the comic book version: Around the table we have:
1) Big firm corporate lawyer. Picture a guy out of central casting. An odd combination of dorky and obnoxious. Wears a good suit but doesn't look good in it. Makes about $2 million per year, but pays full freight taxes.
2) Big bank I-banker. Picture another guy out of central casting. Suave and debonair. Was probably a frat president in his Falstaff years. Wears a funny looking collared shirt. Shoots his French cuffs a lot. Makes about $5 million per year, but pays full freight taxes.
3) PE Master of The Universe. No defining look. Could be wearing jeans. Puts up no money of his own, but through the miracle of "carried interest" transmutes $20 million of annual income into capital gains.
What were they doing? "Rationalizing" companies and even industries. "Rationalizing" invariably means downsizing the number of American workers and creating capital gains-driven upside for a handful of managers. With debt leverage.
I'm not arguing that this was a Bad Thing. I am saying I could demagogue this to no end, were I working for the other side. If I can, Axlerod surely can. And will, if the Republicans are so blind as to nominate Mitt.
It'll be fatal in PA and OH, among others.
Jeb Bush is floating trial balloons. This may have been Karl Rove's Master Plan all along.
What will Sarah do? Developing .....