Saturday, December 10, 2011

Who can beat Obama? 

For those of you who come here before Instapundit, check out Glenn's morning poll. My guess is that the results will bounce around all day and ultimate become fodder for small bore campaign propaganda.


By Anonymous Old Fan, at Sat Dec 10, 11:59:00 AM:

It is an interesting poll.

I have to appreciate Mr. Hinderaker's latest, which is a healthy dose of reality:
"But the Republican Party would be crazy to nominate him for president."

Are we on the verge of making the biggest mistake in contemporary political history? Newt Gingrich will lose dramatically in any National Election. I was intensely opposed to John McCain's Nomination, knowing the Beltway Insider would lose. But Newt's Nomination will also weaken the Republican Elections across the Country in 2012. It grows concerning to see this poorly conceived image/identity game being sold as "conservatism" these days. This is greatly enabling the disastrous Democratic Party.

The conservative arena looks very contradictory and quite self destructive. Many are selling a cheap shell game without substance or reason. It is a weak effort addicted to emotion, frustrations, and a need for acceptance. It surprises, to see those considering themselves ideal conservatives, who seem unable to distinguish between a successful private sector product in Mr. Romney, who is a proven CEO with impressive accomplishment, vs. the public sector offering in Mr. Gingrich who has made a dubious career within the Beltway exploiting Our Federal Government.

One of the more serious problems with Newt Gingrich is his lack of Executive ability, his utter lack of private sector experience, his complete absence of economic credibility, his terrible record when he attempted to do the job as Speaker. This election is about the US Economy, the essential need to empower the Free Market over the Public Sector. Newt Gingrich is a career politician, a Washington Celebrity who has no serious political offering to address the genuine American Public's concern, none. He simply cannot convince anyone he has suddenly discovered a talent in Leadership, Economics, Management, etc., to get the job done as the Executive. Besides, he is so tainted as a Beltway Player, he is just a distraction to the most empowering case we Conservatives/Republicans can provide to remove the failed Democrats from influence in 2012. All of the serious issues, like the dreadful unemployment, the poor GDP growth, the painful rise in cost of living, etc., will fade away from focus with someone like Newt Gingrich as the Nominee.

On the other hand, Mr. Romney has a stellar record, self made within Our Free Market. Not only has his work with Bain and other enterprises empowered many with opportunity, prosperity, etc., his Governors tenure in MA has excellent qualities conservatives can appreciate as well. He balanced an inherited budget deficit of 3 Billion, was fiscally responsible with spending, provided admirable tax/regulation reduction, empowered local law enforcement to address illegal immigrants, vetoed minimum wage - gay marriage - illegal immigrant education funding, offered no pardons - even tried to reinstate the Death Penalty, passed some impressive items including a needed drunk driving address in Melanie's Law, etc. Romney is one of the most capable, sound, serious, articulate, proven Executives we have coming from Outside of Washington. He has been given a 'bad rap' from so many, inspired from religious bigotry, the regretful bias against a wealthy success, even this new superficial slant against those in certain unacceptable geographical locations like the "East", etc. Even worse, is encountering so-called conservatives, who simply have a prejudice with Mr. Romney's professional appearance and diction.

It is all rather embarrassing. We can defeat the Democratic Party in 2012, if we don't defeat ourselves again before the General Election begins. Regardless, it continues to amaze to see many big named sideline pundits lose further credibility, rather sad.  

By Anonymous Ignoramus, at Sat Dec 10, 12:24:00 PM:

Neither Paul Ryan nor Chris Christie is on the list. Either would be a lock to beat Obama, if they were the nominee. Many others could be too. So this poll is a bit of a set-up. It's not too late to open this thing up. Tampa in August 2012 is still a long way down the road.

Both Newt and Mitt can lose to Obama, but for different reasons. For Mitt it's the Ghost of 1948 Thomas E. Dewey. For Newt, it's because his Inner Child is a brat -- and he will come out to play.

So far, the Republican race has only served as a referendum on Mitt, and he continues to lose. He may win, but only by default. So Mitt and his minions are now attacking Newt personally, which is the right Monte Carlo simulation answer: take down the last credible competitor in a piss poor field. But it doesn't answer Mitt's longer-term challenges.

So where will we be at the end of January? Here's a plausible scenario:

Newt should win Iowa. It'll give him more momentum and credibility. Newt +28 winner-take all delegates.

Mitt should still win New Hampshire. If he doesn't he's over. But New Hampshire delegates get split. Mitt +7, Newt +5

Newt should win South Carolina. Sarah could figure here because she can sway Holy Rollers to Newt. Expect Newt to make Mitt look like a Yankee money bags carbet-bagger. Newt + 25 winner-take all delegates. Score Newt 58, Mitt 7

So who wins winner take-all Florida on January 31? If Mitt loses here the basic premise of his campaign collapses: "It's inevitable -- shut up and fall in line" Even if Mitt wins, it's still a horse race in the delegate count.

The GOP Establishment shouldn't want Newt. But most of the voters in the GOP don't want Mitt.

We may have others jump in, or even see an open convention in Tampa. It's not too late.  

By Anonymous Old Fan, at Sat Dec 10, 01:25:00 PM:

"Ignoramus" offers a great deal of the fashion I reference. Why would a Romney Primary win be "only by default"? This of course, is utter nonsense.

The play on divisive forms of "establishment" warfare is simply a form of tired populism, much like the one Obama uses to vilify the "rich".

The commenter Ignoramus types, "Yankee money bags carbet-bagger". This is further evidence of the ugly bias and superficial sophistry. The class warfare is utterly not conservative at all. Image driven hatred and emotive bias are purely self destructive. It is a sign of the unhealthy destructive forces amongst us, who only enable the opposite.

Genuine conservatives fully know we are all responsible for Our Government and Our political offering. Too many irresponsible voices are playing the dividing game. It is all easy to blame some, to create an enemy to gain attention and acceptance from the sidelines. It isn't healthy. It only weakens, divides, distracts in the long run. But regretfully we see many exploit and fall prey to the tired garbage.

One has to wonder if someone like "Ignoramus" has actually studied the map beyond Iowa, NH, SC, Florida. Newt Gingrich is not even registered in a number of areas. While Cain even remains on the early contests. Mr. Romney is in a very strong position to win the Primary, he is obviously the best offering for the job. No Candidate who has ever won the Nomination has not been challenged at some point.

Ironically, this is bizarrely showing the same irrational push for Newt Gingrich the ultimate in Washington Beltway Insiders, the icon of exploiting the Public Sector for personal gain. Newt swiped 1.8 million via Fannie and Freddie. In 2008, Al Gore asked Newt Gingrich to sit on a couch with Nancy Pelosi to peddle global warming nonsense - Newt was eager to oblige. Prior to the 2008 Primary, Newt Gingrich jumped to appear with Patrick Kennedy and Hillary Clinton to push a Federal Database of US Citizens. Recently he indicated on Beck's show he is in favor of some version of a Federal Heatlh Care Mandate. He has openly supported Cap and Trade taxation and "amnesty". Newt Gingrich even ran away from the Bush Administration on the MSM when it was waging an admirable endeavor in Iraq, in the face of poor poll data. He is hardly the ideal, and his platform and past indicate he is even more moderate than Mr. Romney in many ways.

Gingrich is the ultimate image con artist, exploiting Our Base, while he does the exact opposite - living another double life. Newt Gingrich will only help reelect Obama. And yet the fashion is stuck on a dysfunctional - ugly bias against a sound Private Sector CEO like Romney.

The folly is obvious. It is a sad day, as the once serious and sound conservative movement is debased into a weak shell game - helping the Democratic Party.  

By Anonymous Ignoramus, at Sat Dec 10, 03:07:00 PM:

"Why would a Romney Primary win be "only by default"? "

Because of polling math and a little game theory. We've had several folks in the race who've been ahead of Mitt or nearly so, only to fade because they have serious personal weaknesses. When they fade, Mitt doesn't gain. These voters gravitate to someone else, but never to Mitt. He's stuck below 25% with weak competition.

That's a tell. Too many GOP voters don't want Mitt. Newt is the last alternative on offer (for now). It's why Newt -- despite lots of baggage and shaky credentials -- has a serious shot, when he shouldn't.

I'm not pushing for Newt. But I have been harping on Mitt's electability. The facts on the ground keep bearing me out.

I actually have studied the map beyond Iowa, NH, SC, Florida. My point is that it may not matter: Mitt may not get out of the month of January. If Mitt loses NH or Florida he's over. (I'd say Florida is no better than a toss-up right now). I'd take the bet that Newt will have more delegates than Mitt at the end of January -- and give points. That's a Holy Shit Outcome, and likely.

Mitt is a Great Man, and a Good Guy. Seriously. If it was a question of who to trust with my money or be godfather to my kids, it's no contest.

But that's not how people vote. Old Fan is blind on this. I'm not calling Mitt a "Yankee money bags carbet-bagger". I'm saying that Newt will. And it will work in South Carolina. Life isn't always fair.

If Mitt can't knock off Newt among Republicans without breaking a sweat, it's a tell that he'll struggle in the general. "I'm not Obama" may trump all, but I wouldn't count on it. The GOP needs to think about hitting the reset button.  

By Anonymous feeblemind, at Sat Dec 10, 05:06:00 PM:

It is exceedingly hard to see how 0bama will beat anyone next year.

Let's see, just off the top of my feeble mind:

1)There was an article this week that reported the dems have lost 825,000 voters from their ranks in battle ground states.

2)0bama has added about 5 trillion to the national debt.

3)Unemployment is over 8%.

4)Inflation is on the rise.

5)According to a cBS poll, 'Just 41 percent of Americans think Mr. Obama has performed his job well enough to be elected to a second term, whereas 54 percent don't think so."

and, 'Views of how he has handled the economy is the obvious drag on the president's ratings: While just 33 percent approve, 60 percent disapprove. Similarly, just 35 percent approve his his handling of job creation while 58 percent disapprove."

6)More people than ever are on food stamps.

7)Another article said that 0bama would not pursue the white blue collar vote.

8)We also have the Solyndra and fast and Furious scandals.

9)In addition there is The Stimulus, as well as the Wall St and auto bailouts.

10)And finally there is the wildly unpopular 0bamacare.

So... in the face of all that, how can 0bama possibly win, regardless of who runs against him?  

By Anonymous Ignoramus, at Sat Dec 10, 06:12:00 PM:

Obama got 359 electoral votes in 2008 -- McCain got just 179.
Obama will have a real uphill struggle to get over 270 this time.
But he starts out with over 200 electoral votes as a lock in most scenarios.
If he can hold a few big states that he won last time (like FL or PA) he can do it, but it should be low odds.
It doesn't help tthe Republicans to lose the Hispanic vote badly, or to lose Women Who Make Pro-Choice a Litmus Test.
Obama will also make clear that he's the one that'll put more money in your pocket if you're poor or unemployed.
Obama will scare the elderly, especially in Florida.
Bernanke will keep floating Obama's boat.
Low odds, but possible.

The real game is to win 60 in the Senate.  

By Blogger Gary Rosen, at Sun Dec 11, 02:34:00 AM:

I like Romney. I think he is a decent, honorable guy. But he has two problems as I see it:

1) Romneycare. If there is a single issue for the Tea Party wing of the Repbulicans it is Obamacare and Romneycare just looks too much like it. If he had disowned it earlier he might stand a chance but now it would only open him to more charges of flip-flopping.

2) Romeny is *too* decent and honorable and will not run a hard enough campaign against Obama. It kills me to say this. But we all know that despite the phony image protected by the MSM Obama is basically a bare-knuckle Chicago pol. And with people waking up to what a disaster his administration has been he is going to have to go way past bare knuckles to bicycle chains, knives and cement overshoes. He is going to run the dirtiest, most negative campaign ever and the Republican nominee will have to match him step for step because like it or not, negative campaigning *works*. I am sure that a lot of current Newt supporters share Old Fan's misgivings about Newt if not to the same extent. But they do not believe that the genteel Romney has it in him to attack Obama the way he needs to be attacked.

If Romney started attacking Obama *now*, instead of attacking Newt, he might win some, or a lot, of these skeptics over.  

By Anonymous feeblemind, at Sun Dec 11, 11:09:00 AM:

From Jonathan V Last's 'Overestimating Romney' article at the Weekly Standard.

'Romney’s electoral record becomes even more underwhelming when you examine the particulars. He first attracted national notice in 1994 when he mounted what was considered a strong challenge to incumbent senator Ted Kennedy. But when it came time to vote, Romney lost by 17 points in what turned out to be the best year for Republicans in more than half a century. In 2002, Romney won the gubernatorial race in Massachusetts. This victory—the triumph of a Republican in deep-blue Massachusetts—is now the cornerstone of his 2012 “electability” rationale.

Yet Romney’s victory was, as a matter of raw political power, less impressive than it seems. Romney was actually the fourth in a string of Republican governors who ran the state from 1990 until 2006. Of that group, Romney received the lowest percentage of the vote, failing to break the 50-percent mark in his 2002 victory. He took home a smaller share of the vote even than Paul Cellucci, the political nonentity who won the 1998 election. After three years in office, Romney’s approval rating was so low that he was forced to abandon hope of reelection.

More evidence of voters’ coolness toward Romney came in a recent Public Policy study, which took snapshots from 13 states both early and late in 2011. In all 13 states, he became less popular as the year progressed. Even more telling were Romney’s negatives—which increased in tandem with his name recognition. As Romney began campaigning more actively, voters became less favorably disposed toward him.


Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?