The next stages for the Republicans

February 6th, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Romney won Nevada easily with 48% of the vote. This is somewhat significant as conventional wisdom had been that he was having trouble getting out of the 30s, and hence when there is just one opponent left, they might beat him.

In the five primaries and caucuses to date Romney has averaged 41%, Gingrich 31%, Santorum 14% and Ron Paul 11%. Romney is estimated to have 97 delegates out of 131.  You need 1,144 to win.

The Maine caucuses are underway, but have only 24 delegates. Romney won then by 31% in 2008.

Colorado with 36 delegates is on the 7th. Romney won that by 42% in 2008 but the latest poll has him 14% ahead of Santorum. Minnesota with 37 delegates also on the 7th. Santorum is on 29%, Romney 27% and Gingrich 22% in latest polls there.

The third one on the 7th is Missouri. 36 delegates.

After that you have Arizona and Michigan on the 28th of February and Washington on 3rd of March. That is the last one before Super Tuesday on 6 March.

Arizona has Romney on 48% and Gingrich 24%. 29 delegates. Michigan has 30 delegates.Washington has 43.

Super Tuesday is not as big this year – down from 24 states to 10 states. However 437 delegates up for grabs. So you don’t need as much money as previously to stay in the race and buy advertising time.

 

Tags: ,

39 Responses to “The next stages for the Republicans”

  1. tom hunter (5,049 comments) says:

    In horse racing terms this still has some interest I suppose, although since Florida I’ve been convinced that Romney has this wrapped up.

    My apologies for trying to tell you how to run your blog, but I’d have thought a more interesting piece might have been one that assumes the GOP nominee will be Romney and then looks at his pros and cons, both from the POV of the election and also from the POV of being President in 2013 with a GOP House and Senate.

    Perhaps some comparisons with Key would also be interesting?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. DJP6-25 (1,389 comments) says:

    Romney will do. If he strays too far off the reservation, the Tea party can guide him back. No Republican could be as bad for America as 0bama; or half as bad as Jimmy Carter.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    I assume that Romney has it wrapped up, so the question then turns to who his VP would be.

    Would it be likely, given that Romney struggles to get support from the right, as opposed to the centre, that he will go with a more ‘conservative’ VP, someone like Santorum (as an example, rather than a suggestion) who can bring the Tea Party into the Romney fold?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. tom hunter (5,049 comments) says:

    so the question then turns to who his VP would be

    That question will turn less on some nationwide appeal to the Tea Party movement, and more on the tactical requirements of swing states. My guess would be a GOP governor from a Mid-West or Near-East state. While there has long been talk of Jindal (Gov -LA) or Rubio (Senator-Florida), I think both men would decline the offer. Rubio because he’s not been in the Senate very long and is young enough to look towards the 2016 Presidency if Romney goes down, or even 2024 if Romney wins and gets two terms (cough). Jindal is still making great headway in LA and would probably piss more people off if he quit now to go the VP route. Especially since VP has long been considered an awful position – though I think LBJ would love the modern VP environment crafted by Al Gore and Dick Cheney.

    My bet would be Governor Tom Corbett of PA. Popular and successful enough to make a big impact not just on PA’s Presidential vote but on the nearby mid-Western states like IA and Ohio. Rubio meanwhile campaigns hard on behalf of Romney in Florida to swing that state.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. reid (16,611 comments) says:

    I wonder what the chances are of Jeb Bush coming through the middle? I mooted that a few weeks ago based on some article I read. I have to say I can’t really be arsed getting interested at this stage since all the candidates are merely different sides of the same coin. Anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn’t understand US politics. So I’m just waiting till they name them then I’ll start looking at it.

    But for those of you currently following it, do you have any thoughts on a Bush III?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. geo_kiwi (43 comments) says:

    I am holding my judgement off until Super Tuesday has passed and we have seen where the delegates for those races fall. If Romney gets the bulk of them – lets say 2/3 – that will give him around 430 candidates.

    “No Republican could be as bad for America as Obama: or half as bad as Jimmy Carter” – DJP6-25

    I disagree. The only thing that could be worse for America than one of these nutters is a President supported by the Tea Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    tom,

    I hadn’t thought of Corbett; I was aware of Jindal and Rubio but discounted them for the same reasons you did. I wondered if he might go for someone like Paul Ryan, but I note he is from Wisconsin, whilst Romney is Michigan born.

    reid,

    I don’t think the US is ready for another Bush yet. That is not to disparage Jeb, who I suspect will be a primary candidate at some point, but I think we are still too close to W’s departure to allow the MSM the chance of using the memory of one brother to attack the other. Give it time and W will be seen in a better light (as he should be) and then Jeb will have a go. But I do think that there is a real chance of a Bush III later in this decade, if Romney doesn’t win!

    Geo_Kiwi,

    I disagree with your assessment of the Tea Party completely. They are a far more legitimate grass-roots movement than anything the Occupy retards can come up with, and their endorsed candidates have done what they said they would do in Congress. I like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. tom hunter (5,049 comments) says:

    I disagree with your assessment of the Tea Party completely.

    FES. I could not see any assessment, only an assertion – plus the word “nutters”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    It seems Gingrich has no time for Romney at all, now will Gingrich go the route of if I am not going to be the GOP candidate I will go independent route to fuck things up for you in the general election ?

    Jeez, a cult member as president of the USA, I take it we would end up swamped with fucking mormon missionaries.
    I wonder how soon Romney will be fuckwit enough to invade Iran, very slow learners the septics

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    tom,

    fair point.

    geo_kiwi,

    I reject your implied assertion re the Tea Party, as well as your description of the current contenders for the Republican nomination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Neil (588 comments) says:

    In my opinion Chris Christie(New Jersey)or Mitch Daniels(Indiana) are the most obvious choices for VP.
    Tea Party people need not apply as they are at the back of a lot of the negative feeling towards the GOP.
    Christie and Daniels provide the example of good government,moderation and not some of the craziness of the Tea Party.
    I don’t see a southerner being on the list(Except perhaps Rubio) because even Porky the pig would carry southern states against Obama.
    The GOP must win states like Pennsylvania,Ohio,Florida,Virginia,New Hampshire,Michigan and Wisconsin. Christie and Daniels have track records of effective government. Christie presses all the right buttons, being a slightly right of centre candidate and also a Catholic which would offset Romney’s mormonism.
    What does concern me is the much smaller GOP voting patterns to 2008. Romney must catch some moment to set his crusade on fire.
    At the present it lookls dead in the water.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. tom hunter (5,049 comments) says:

    Tea Party people need not apply as they are at the back of a lot of the negative feeling towards the GOP.

    and not some of the craziness of the Tea Party.

    More mere assertions. I especially like the use of the words “some” and “a lot”.

    I’d note that I’ve regularly heard of the “nuttiness” and “craziness” of the Tea Party – particularly in the lead up to the 2010 mid-term elections – but very rarely heard the same expressed about OWS movements, even as they’ve compiled a massive record of actual crimes, violence, and general behaviour that very much fits the definition of “crazy” and “nutty.

    Funny how this movement was championed by Democrats and their activists for quite some time without it being raised as a factor that might make Democrats “unelectable”: it was very much common wisdom that it was the opposite. Considering that even hard-line lefty Bill Maher is now agreeing with Newt Gingrich that the OWS crowd should “get a job”, I can only assume they’re no longer seen as an electoral adavantage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. mikenmild (11,557 comments) says:

    The Tea Party seem to be pretty much irrelevant now. They have had their impact and passed the high-water mark – where do they go from here apart from falling in line behind the middle-of-the-road nominee?

    It’s difficult at this stage to see a Republican combination posing a terribly serious challenge to Obama, especially once the campaigning begins in earnest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    tom,

    the ‘crazy Tea Party’ meme is all a part of the effort by the left to discredit what was and is a very popular and influential movement. The amount of criminality in the Occupy camps has been overlooked so as not to discredit what was thought to be a left wing answer to the Tea Party. And it was a left wing answer to the Tea Party: where the Tea Party was peaceful and respectful, the Occupy movement shat on police cars and burned flags; where the Tea Party wanted smaller government and less taxes, the Occupy movement wanted more taxes and more government; where the Tea Party wants people to propel themselves upward, the Occupy movement wants a handout; where the Tea Party applied for permits for its rallies, did no damage and cleaned up after itself, the Occupy movement camped out illegally, demanded free services and then left tonnes of rubbish when it went.

    And whereas the Tea Party had significant influence on the nomination and election of ideologically similar candidates in the US, the Occupy movement has achieved nothing but levying more hatred against those they dislike.

    Nobody on the left seems to mind that the rapes, thefts, vandalism and other crimes that were are part of the Occupy movement around the world were in no way replicated in the Tea Parties.

    But rather than label the Occupiers as criminal haters, they want to have a go at the Tea Party for being ‘crazy, notwithstanding that there is nothing they can point to that the Tea Party represents that isn’t just common sense.

    Yes, just another day in lefty land…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. mikenmild (11,557 comments) says:

    It’s a bit of stretch to compare the Tea Party with the Occupy movement surely. The Tea Party has sought to exert influence within the system, as a ginger group for the Republicans. The occupiers really had no relation to any political party and seemed to reject any connection with political movements per se.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. tvb (4,487 comments) says:

    Gingrich subject to money issues may get enough delegates to deny Romney enough delegates to get an overall majority. That is when it gets interesting as the delegates are only bound in the first ballot at the convention. But Gingrich will not beat Obama, Romney might.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Ricardo (55 comments) says:

    God save America if these are the best candidates the Republican Party can come up with. Obama will bolt back in, and hopefully emerge without a hamstrung Congress and Senate as he has had to battle against this term. And we still have people wanting NZ to become a presidential republic? The US of A gives us a good reason to avoid such a form of government. We, at least, have a government able to make decisions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. tom hunter (5,049 comments) says:

    I see only a sliver of difference between Romney and Obama – and that is primarily that, with Romney, the US would compile debt to about $20 trillion by 2020, whereas Obama would likely get $22 trillion or more.

    In other words the US is fucked either way, since nobody aside from Paul Ryan is willing to actually deal with US spending in general and with the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, not to mention the additional problems of having several versions of Greece in the Lower 48. Everything else – military spending, “spending on wars”, discretionary spending in general – and “tax cuts for the rich” are sideshows by comparison. As such they will probably be the primary battlefields – along Romney’s underwear!

    However, were I a US citizen I would still pull the lever for the robotic one on the old “least worst” principle. I suspect many US lefties will do the same for Obama for much the same reason and probably with the same feelings.

    Having declared how dubious I am about the candidates, even as I lean to one side, I would like to make a pleas based on the comment below:

    It’s difficult at this stage to see a Republican combination posing a terribly serious challenge to Obama, especially once the campaigning begins in earnest.

    Obama will bolt back in…

    If those of us with any interest in US politics (and I suspect it’s few in number) can we please have some reasons – perhaps even as long as several paragraphs – put behind such statements. Otherwise it’s just a waste of time.

    UPDATE: and hopefully emerge without a hamstrung Congress and Senate as he has had to battle against this term.

    I should also have mentioned that it would also help if mind-blowing ignorance about recent history is also not applied. FFS!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. mikenmild (11,557 comments) says:

    Sure Tom. Obama is a proven campaigner and there is no reason to doubt he cannot be as effective as in 2008. Romney to me does not seem to be a candidate that will draw much enthusiasm from the republican base, let alone draw wider support

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Ricardo (55 comments) says:

    What are you trying to say Tom??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. tom hunter (5,049 comments) says:

    That’s it? One paragraph? Let me see if I can draw you out a little further:

    Obama is a proven campaigner
    Okaaayy – I guess. I’ve long said that the only thing he’s really good at is campaigning as that’s all he ever seems to have done, skipping from one election to the next.
    However, could you perhaps put a bit of flesh on the things that make him a proven campaigner in your eyes so that we could then move to …
    there is no reason to doubt he cannot be as effective as in 2008
    No reason? None at all? I mean that’s fair enough but it seems so thin as to be merely another assertion.

    … does not seem to be a candidate that will draw much enthusiasm from the republican base, let alone draw wider support

    Again – why? Jesus, moving from broad assertion to a more sharply defined one is an improvement but ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. mikenmild (11,557 comments) says:

    To address the Republicans first. They are settling for Romney, but are not exactly in love with him. They have flirted with a succession of not-Romneys – Bachman, Cain, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich – all of whom have fallen by the wayside and never looked much like being able to get majority Republican support, let alone appealling in a general election. Romney’s religion is a difficulty for some, and his moderate record as governor does not exactly appeal to the zealots.

    I don’t have so much to say about Obama. He has of course the advantage of incumbency and the presidency is his to lose. He seemed fairly astute tactically last time round and will have stacks of dough again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. tom hunter (5,049 comments) says:

    Okay – and now an apology in advance, since I’ve been needling you – but I’ve got to go and cook dinner!!

    Sorry. Will get back to your points.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. BlairM (2,356 comments) says:

    I am not going to call it for Romney yet. Very few delegates have been allocated, and he could still slip up if Newt changes things up and gets his A game on. But I would give that about 10 to 20% odds. Mitt is in the driving seat right now and a comeback for Newt would be historic.

    If Mitt is the nominee I would actually feel fairly safe betting on Jindal. Romney will go for someone more conservative than himself with strong Tea Party ties. That rules out Christie. Haley hasn’t been a Governor long enough and has already said she will decline. Rubio likewise is only a first term senator and Romney will want someone like that as an ally in the Senate instead. Jindal however was just reelected by a huge majority in Louisiana and would be ideal.

    If Jindal declines, look for Paul Ryan, or even Herman Cain.

    (Punters should note that I am currently on a roll for picking VP nominees – I said McCain would go with Palin before most people even knew who she was. So I think it’s gunna be Jindal)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Manolo (14,018 comments) says:

    I believe Rubio will be the VP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    F E Smith says:- “the ‘crazy Tea Party’ meme is all a part of the effort by the left to discredit what was and is a very popular and influential movement”

    Yes it is popular and influential. The nuttiness accusations stem from certain prominent Tea Party spokespersons’ superstitious denial of established scientific fact. A strong case could be made that those who hold religious beliefs are essentially delusional and are therefore mentally ill.

    The OWS movement on the other hand was born out of a sense of frustration felt by many with a growing wealth disparity between the very rich and the very poor (neither of whom Romney gives a toss about apparently) and a feeling that crony capitalism has completely undermined the notion of democracy. (which Obama doesn’t appear to give a toss about either)

    The fact that many of these protests were hijacked by the homeless (ironically) and various anarchic anti-globalist movements seems to have been lost on the likes of tom hunter who characterizes the OWS protesters thusly:

    :arrow: “even as they’ve compiled a massive record of actual crimes, violence, and general behaviour that very much fits the definition of “crazy” and “nutty.”

    Of course, evil left wingers trash, demonize and villify their opponents, whereas right wingers just tell it like it is ay?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    “The OWS movement on the other hand was born out of a sense of frustration felt by many with a growing wealth disparity between the very rich and the very poor”

    No it wasn’t. It was organised by veteran ‘anarchist’ protesters. It just used social media to perpetuate itself until the truth of the criminal and/or envy based nature of the participants became apparent.

    “evil left wingers trash, demonize and villify their opponents”

    Well, historically they have often tried to kill them or otherwise silence them. Today they cannot do the killing part so much, so they try to silence them more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. DJP6-25 (1,389 comments) says:

    geo_kiwi 3:15. [I just got home from work] Oh, you mean the Tea Party that doesn’t trespass on public land, refuse to move when asked, commits rapes, makes a mess for others to clean up, crap on police cars; and generally make a public nuisance of itself? If elected Democrats were capable of feeling shame, or embarrasment, they’d quickly distance themselves from such people. Naturally, being socialists first; and Democrats second, they don’t.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. ephemera (557 comments) says:

    The Tea Party is history. This is evidenced by their inaction in the Nevada caucus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Bob R (1,385 comments) says:

    ***The nuttiness accusations stem from certain prominent Tea Party spokespersons’ superstitious denial of established scientific fact. A strong case could be made that those who hold religious beliefs are essentially delusional and are therefore mentally ill.***

    Actually, as David Friedman points out, when it comes to denying the implications of evolution you usually find those on the left.

    http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.co.nz/2008/08/who-is-against-evolution.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. tom hunter (5,049 comments) says:

    Hey – the thread is not dead after all. Okay, to address mikenmild’s point.

    As far as the GOP is concerned all your reasons seem to focus on the lack of enthusiasm in the base for Romney. I don’t think his base support has ever really gone beyond about 25%, with numerous “not-Romney’s” having risen and fallen with the rest. However, his recent wins have pushed much higher than that figure and done so across almost all demographics. That indicates to me that people who have looked for something else have finally decided to go for Romney.

    That’s important to your point, for it indicates that even if they are not enthusiastic about Romney the GOP base will turn out to vote “for” him in the general election: “for” meaning that they will turn out to vote against Obama. If we’re talking about the GOP voters I would argue that it will be that factor that is the key point in this election. The GOP base may not be enthused about Romney, but they are as pissed off at Obama as the Dem base was about Bush in 2008 (even though Bush was not on the ballot).

    Here are what I see as three reasons for why that’s different in 2012.

    First, GOP voters remember 2008, when something like 5 million of them stayed home rather than vote for McCain. The lack of enthusiasm was combined with anger at the 2001-2006 Bush/GOP spend-up, making them seem little different from the Democrats, plus a Democrat who said all the right things about reducing the debts and deficit; the thinking was so what if Obama is elected – big whoop! That last also led to a decent (if still small) chunk of GOP voters voting for Obama.

    This actually mirrors the 1992 and 1996 elections for the GOP, and the 2000 election for the Democrats. In all three cases the alternative did not seem extreme and “their sides” choice merely caused shoulders to shrug.

    But as with 2008 people have learned their lesson: your vote does make a difference (countless left-wingers have wistfully played out scenarios where Gore is president on 9/11). On the GOP side they’ve seen what total bullshit Obama’s claims of being a moderate – especially with regard to Federal spending – has been. They’re motivated and they won’t fall for that line again, they understand the meaning of “least-worst” choice, even as it galls them. That will apply to Tea Party, limited-government types as well as Christian evangelists who are supposedly wary of “cults”. Romney may be a squish – but the objective will simply be to stop Obama.

    Secondly, the same thing applies to the general electorate. The number of independents appears to be growing every year as people rightfully become disillusioned with both parties – especially in swing states. That group is going to be having many of the same thoughts as the GOP: they may be merely disappointed rather than pissed off, but they’re motivated to change things. In 2008 many thought that Obama represented real change: now they know it just means more of the same, and while they probably cast a critical eye at Romney from that viewpoint they’re likely to give the new guy a chance – understanding that they can boot him in 2016 in the same way.

    If Obama was riding a good economy they’d probably just shrug their shoulders – but that’s not the case this year.

    Thirdly, little thought seems to be given to the enthusiasm-gap on the Democrat side. It’s quite obvious from polling and Obama’s recent actions that he’s desperately trying to gin his base up. “Hope and Change” has evaporated for many Obama believers, so unless Obama can paint Romney as the devil incarnate it’s going to be tough to re-create the huge groundswell he had in 2008.

    So I’d say we’re looking at a 50:50 election here from the POV of motivation, with a likely edge to the GOP.

    There are other factors to look at of course:
    – The campaigning skill and ability of both the candidates and their campaign machines (as you alluded to)
    – Money and backing
    – Policies (meaning their real policies rather than the public consumption BS)
    – The environment of the electorate.

    But those can wait for other threads that (hopefully) will happen as the election heats up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. BlairM (2,356 comments) says:

    I believe Rubio will be the VP.

    *sigh* Rubio has comprehensively ruled himself out. He will not be the VP pick for anybody this go around.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Paul1 (32 comments) says:

    Huckabee is a good chance for VP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Paulus (2,656 comments) says:

    MBama will get in easily again.
    Who the hell wants to try and sort out the US financial mess.
    It was Clinton and MBama – the Senator from Illinois at the time, who created the Sub Prime Mortgage, the catalyst for much of the US financial collapse.
    Houses are still collapsing in price as the Banks (Fanny & Freddy – who were forced by Clinton’s legislation that they had to give morgages to those who had no money – they said they did not have the funds but were told to find it from the Banks), are forced to take them over as worthless chattels.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. kiwi in america (2,508 comments) says:

    I’m a little late to this thread. It is hard not to see Romney sewing the nomination up by Super Tuesday. The media love affair with Gingrich is over and GOP voters have followed suit. After Romney won FL, the major media organisations drastically cut back their on-the-road staff covering Gingrich, Santorum and Paul for cost cutting reasons and that lack of media oxygen combined with lack of money vs Romney (and Santorum and Gingrich both having meagre ground ops) gives Romney a huge advantage. Santorum may win Missouri due to Gingrich being not on the ballot but its only a non-binding caucus so no deleates are at stake. Michigan is Romney’s old home state (that he won in 08) so he will win easily there. Arizona has a sizeable Mormon population which will ensure an easy win there. Colorado and Minnesota (so called purple states) will be a wee bit tougher but Romney’s money and ground game will trump the others. Romney’s remaining archilles heal is the southern and border states that vote in Super Tuesday. Gingrich will count on Georgia (his home state) and the higher evangelical vote in the south may cause Romney some problems due to the resistance of some evangelicals to Romney’s LDS faith. This will likely be countered by Romney’s money and momentum but it means he will not get as decisive victories as he needs due to the fact that only some of the Super Tuesday races are winner take all. The GOP nominating system this time round features a lot more states allocating delegates proportionally or by who wins a plurality in a Congressional district – such are the vagaries of state by state electoral law here.

    I do not see Jeb Bush entering the race. The likelihood of a brokered convention is very remote. For that to happen the ‘not Romney’ vote would need to coalese around a single candidate and I don’t see that happening unless Gingrich and Paul dropped out and endorsed Santorum. Gingrich’s pride and hubris will not allow that to happen and Paul’s quirky libertarian views and his equally quirky supporters are in the race all the way to the Convention to make a point. That splits the not Romney vote and allows Romney to continue to divide and rule.

    As for VP I would not rule out Rubio despite his denials. He would be the most attractive Veep IMHO (young, from the south and key swing state of FL, stellar aspirational rags to riches story to counter Romney’s more patrician past and an extremely eloquent speaker to boot). Jindal is another excellent option – racially diverse, another southern Govenor and very successful in Lousiana (a state with many problems). Christie is an excellent option but he’s another white Northeastern RINO albeit a feisty one. I wouldn’t rule out a surprise pick such as the new and successful Hispanic GOP Gov of New Mexico Susanna Martinez.

    At the end of the day, the condition of the economy will be the biggest determiner of whether Obama can be defeated (barring some Iranian embassy/Desert One foreign policy Cateresque cock up). If unemployment drops more rapidly and GDP growth surprises on the upside, watch for Obama’s approval ratings to rise. If the Congressional Budget Office’s recent dour assessment of the economy for 2012/13 comes true, Obama is toast and it won’t matter that Romney has a silver spoon in his mouth, that Romneycare was the precursor to Obamacare and that his religion might seem a little odd to some.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. big bruv (14,114 comments) says:

    KIA

    Can you really see somebody like Romney beating Obama?

    The media will not allow it for a start, the left have far too much capital invested in Obama to let him become a one term POTUS.

    If the Republicans could have convinced somebody like Christie to run then things might have been a bit different, however I just cannot see enough of middle America casting their vote for a religious nutbar like Romney.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. tom hunter (5,049 comments) says:

    Speaking of the US MSM I’ve long appreciated John Kass. No GOP apologist he regularly ripped Bush and the GOP over any manner of things.

    But he has not let Obama off the hook one bit, probably because he’s spent twenty years covering the cesspit that is Chicago and Illinois politics and suffers no illusions about it’s by-products. The following, from the Chicago Tribune, will make good fun if the GOP have the balls and brains to use it as counter-attacks to Romney and religion – Praise the Lord and pass the taxes:

    “I wake up each morning, and I say a brief prayer, and I spend a little time in Scripture and devotion,”

    “I don’t stop there. I’d be remiss if I stopped there, if my values were limited to personal moments of prayer or private conversations with pastors or friends,” he said. “I must try to make sure that those values motivate me as one leader of this great nation.”

    Kass does not quote it but I think there was also something about Obama falling to his knees in prayer. Personally I’ve always thought the guy was a stone atheist playing the rubes. As Kass points out:

    See how the presidency transforms a man? Only a few years ago, he had much different views, saying Americans frustrated with the bad economy were religious and “bitter.”

    “They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” reasoned Obama.

    You could just hear the old secular Obama thinking about those superstitious fools, making excuses for them, those clodhoppers holding on to their shotguns, then putting on clean clothes Sunday to enter those special buildings.

    You know, those special buildings with the crosses on them. Where the clodhoppers gather and kneel and pray to their deity. So sad, how these frightened peasants are compelled to cleave to such comforting rituals, eh?

    But that was the Old Obama at a fundraiser, and cameras weren’t invited.

    Heh, heh, heh. But he has words for his fellow scribes (dupes, rubes):

    The president knows he can’t satisfy everyone. Some will think him cynical. But I remember the light in the eyes of many of my colleagues when he campaigned, how bright and shiny their faces were as they gazed upon him, tingly and full of hope, writing their stories about the transcendent figure before them.

    Pity he’s not carried in NZ papers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. tom hunter (5,049 comments) says:

    Bloody editor

    … and suffers no illusions about its by-products

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. tom hunter (5,049 comments) says:

    Bring out your dead ……!

    I figured I’d haul this thread back momentarily to point out that Romney has just crushed Santorum in Arizona and piled up a good win by 5 points or so in Michigan. In the case of the latter he absolutely had to do that considering it was regarded as his “home” state and anything less than a solid win would have been spun as a disaster.

    So the Romney machine rolls on and will really gather momentum for Super Tuesday next week. Perhaps this circus can finally come to an end and the GOP can start smacking Obama in the face instead of themselves.

    I still regard Romney as largely a dead loss, but at least with a GOP guy as President, and memories of the failure of GHWB in sucking up to the left, a GOP senate and House might be able to actually deal with the looming disasters of debt, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the general fuckup that is the Federal government.

    But I’m still not hopeful about their willingness or ability even in that scenario.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote