nice post bats. Disagree with those saying he needs to motivate the base. The hardcores will be voting against Obama -- no need to woo them other then by continuing to demonize the Pres... So once he wins the primary it's just a jump to the left...before the madness takes its toll...Backing off from the rhetoric from the primaries is pretty standard stuff. I'm not sure the VP matters too much this time. Maybe they avoid a bold move given what happened last time...basically run as a 'Not Obama' candidate and no more. I think we overplay the significance of the VP sometimes. Dan Quayle anyone? Were Joe Lieberman or John Edwards really game changers?
Yeah he's not much of a teleprompter reader. Totally unfit for office... Romney up on Obama in Rasmussen today 47-45. But we're told he has no chance.
I disagree here. VPs often are used to shore up weak demographic groups - both Palin and Biden were picked for that purpose in the last election. What makes Romney unique is that his weakness is the conservative base (tea party). And they have proven to have little loyalty to moderate GOPers even when its harmful to their own interests, so you take a major risk if you don't try to capture them. That said, I think Snowe would be interesting, but it would require jumping through some hoops. Snowe supported a lot of the Obama initiatives that like FinReg and Stimulus that Romney is railing on. There would be a big disconnect there because she, in part, made some of those things possible with her support to help break gridlock.
this is why we have---a rolling average of ALL polls. RCP Average 2/16 - 3/8 -- 49.2 44.8 Obama +4.4 yay statistical outliers.
oh, Rasmussen. Rasmussen Reports 1/3 - 1/4 1000 LV 42 42 Tie Rasmussen Reports 12/27 - 12/28 1000 LV 39 45 Romney +6 Rasmussen Reports 12/20 - 12/21 1000 LV 44 41 Obama +3
That is but one of the things that make him unique, but I agree. He is weak with the base. But he's weak with independents too. That accounts for the swing in Obama's favor v. Romney in polls over the last months. And independents don't just stay home -- sometimes they vote for a Democrat. Romney's been sinking with them pretty steadily and when he secures the nomination his first order of business, after the formality of getting the enthusiastic endorsements of every single conservative of note, should be to stanch that bleeding wound. His likability is way underwater and there too the movement is among independents. Republicans have badly punished moderates in their own party, it's true. But they've done it by primarying them with candidates to their right. Against Obama it will be a head-to-head. The primary will have happened because it's happening now and if the base hates him that badly he won't win the nomination. But he will. Surely you don't imagine the far right to punish Romney for a RINO by voting Obama? Or that, given a shot at getting Obama out, they would punish his soft conservative credentials by staying home. Republicans are going to vote because Republicans always vote. That's why they support various measures that encourage low turnout. Low turnout is always bad for Democrats because Republicans always vote. They may not vote for Romney but they will surely vote against Obama and if Romney's the mechanism to vote against Obama they might wash their hands after but they will go and they will pull that lever. I don't have any handy proof to link to but if you look at support for Romney among independents, he is bleeding. I don't say that doesn't mean he wouldn't be benefitted by the right candidate to appeal to his base and also be palatable to people in the middle. That's why I suggested Haley Barbour. And seconded the notion of Bob McDonnell. In fact, if Romney wants to shore up a deficiency he might look into Barbour to shore up his likability and get some of that I-vote-for-the-one-I-like vote. Because that's probably where Romney's greatest deficit lies; not on a left/right spectrum but on a like/dislike one. Barbour could help a little with that. And the southern and conservative votes he'd help along wouldn't hurt either.
Oh and when I brought up Olympia Snowe it was half a joke--she would never be the pick--but the serious part was to do with independents because that is where presidential elections are decided and as bad as Romney has it on the right he has it worse in the middle. The right will come along. The middle is up for grabs.
Do you really think Barbour or McDonnell are going to bring in ANY independant votes? I'm curious why you would think that because I see those guys as base shoring picks only.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U7pv7sO5Gng?version=3&feature=player_embedded"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U7pv7sO5Gng?version=3&feature=player_embedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>
Rick thanks for the video. You seem to securely have white pop country vote in your corner. Even though your never going to win its ok because that's all you really need.
I think they are likable and comfortable in their own bodies, both of which are real problems for Mitt. And Barbour is the sort of southerner that can be charming to all sorts. Bottom line, neither is offensive or unpalatable to indies. I don't say either should be the nominee. I am primarily making the point that Mitt's main weakness is not with the right. That is silly because if he's the nominee he will have them anyway and they will not stay home because they never do. His main weakness is with everybody because he is, so far, fundamentally unlikable. Worse, it is a data-proven fact that Romney becomes more unlikable the better he is known. To send him out so voters can get to know and like him better doesn't work. It is like a Chinese finger trap. They more he tries, the more he fails. Empirically. He doesn't need someone to shore him up geographically and he doesn't need someone to shore him up on the right (that would do more harm than good with the voters he needs to regain - indies) -- he needs someone to shore him up by saying, "Look, I'm okay right? You like me? Okay, well I like Mitt so please vote for him." If there is anything that matters more than likability in presidential contests it is likability's brother "understands the problems of people like me." How do you think Romney's doing there? Right. Thought so.
I don't think this is true at all. They stayed home for McCain to some extent. In 2004, 37% of exit poll voters IDed themselves as Republicans. In 2008, that dropped to 32%. I think they probably did a bit in 1996 as well because of Dole's boringness, despite a hatred for Clinton.
I don't say the numbers are exactly the same every time and of course there are factors outside of who the parties put up for president that affect this strongly as well. Don't forget, in 2004 the GOP did everything they could to put as many gay marriage initiatives on the ballot as possible, which most observers would agree lost Kerry the critical state of Ohio and thereby the election. If it's true the numbers dipped meaningfully in 96 I'm sure I could find external factors there as well. Could Perot have moved the dial at all? It seems likely. Let me put it this way instead since you take issue with my absolute; let's make it a relative one that I believe (could be wrong) is beyond dispute. In the last several decades, I think it's a pretty sure bet that GOP voters were more likely to vote no matter what than Dem voters were. Regardless of whether or not I am right there, I think it's a pretty good bet that Romney would suffer less from a five percent drop in registered Republican turnout than he will if his numbers with independents remain around where they are now. We all know there are a certain number of hardcore voters on both sides that do not stay home. And then there are independents. In our adult lifetimes, barring perhaps the exceptional exception of Nader 2000, the way independent voters have swung has had more effect on the outcome of every presidential election than either base. This is why the contemporary cliche that "as independents go, so goes the election" is a largely true one. This is why we place the focus where it belongs: on swing states. Romney is not so hated nor Obama so acceptable to right-wingers as to put reliably red states in play. This election, assuming it is close at all, will be decided by swing voters in swing states. If Romney chooses to shore up his right-wing credentials with his VP pick rather than addressing a deficit with independent voters he will make a potentially fatal error, as McCain did only one cycle gone.
You're funny sometimes. Sometimes you are even right. This is a rare case in which you are both. BUSTED.
And yet, McCain was trailing in the polls before tapping Palin and surged ahead once she was chosen. It was only after the market crash (when the Republicans as a whole had no shot in American politics) that Obama retook the lead and held it. If anything, Palin would serve as an example of how a centrist presidential candidate can succeed by shoring up the base with the VP nom.
That's excellent news for John McCain! McCain lost by losing the swing states. He won over 90% of Republicans and Obama won over 90% of Democrats. The difference was what happened in the middle. In your world is it true that "Palin would serve as an example of how a centrist presidential candidate can succeed by shoring up the base with the VP nom?" Really? That's weird. Hey, quick! Turn on HBO.
McCain chose Palin out of desperation because he felt things were slipping away. His standing with the GOP base was much stronger than Romney's is now. No comparison. I wouldn't use Palin in any example of a veep selection other than sheer panic. Some kind of way McCain figured she might appeal to female voters who were angry Hillary lost. IMO, he was reaching for the middle, not the right. He must have had an aneurysm. To an earlier poster, sure enough McCain got an initial boost from Palin, but then she opened her mouth.
Okay, don't let what the actual polling data at the time showed get in the way of the narrative you are looking for.
