• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mitt Romney Campaign Deathwatch

Brainster

Penultimate Amazing
Brainster
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
21,945
The early obituaries are starting to filter in:

He's all but doomed now. Senator John McCain will beat him in New Hampshire, probably by a lot, and Romney's media coverage will evaporate and his candidacy will consequently die. On January 9, his managers will walk in and say that the campaign needs $10 million or $15 million to continue and that he, Romney, will have to write the check. Everyone who would contribute has maxed out. Everyone who might won't. Two-time losers don't get new money. It's a basic rule of politics.

Romney will make his last stand in Michigan; that'll be the compromise he and his advisors reach. It's another of his "home" states, by virtue of the fact that his father was governor there 40 years ago. And he'll make the "economy" the issue there, with some immigration red meat thrown in to try to cut McCain. But by then, everyone there will see it for what it is: a construct of consultancy, a case study in desperation. Romney's defeat in Michigan will be definitive. And then it'll be over; back to Belmont with Ann and the kids and plenty of time to think about what went wrong.
Click to expand...
 
The one thing he still has going for himself not mentioned in the article is that "he looks like a president." Plus, he doesn't have a "funny" last name.

His biggest negative is that he is not a Protestant.

Therefore, he is being scrutinized most for superficial reasons.
 
Interestingly, Rush talked a lot in the opening monologue about how inevitable candidates don't lose by nine points. I thought for a couple minutes he was panning Romney, but of course it was Hillary.;)
 
Brainster said:
Interestingly, Rush talked a lot in the opening monologue about how inevitable candidates don't lose by nine points. I thought for a couple minutes he was panning Romney, but of course it was Hillary.;)
Click to expand...

Someone should remind Rush that others have lost Iowa and still went on to become president.

Does the name Bill Clinton in 1992 ring a bell, Rush, or has all that hillbilly heroin damaged your memory?

Michael
 
Last edited:
coalesce said:
Someone should remind Rush that others have lost Iowa and still went on to become president.

Does the name Bill Clinton in 1992 ring a bell, Rush, or has all that hillbilly heroin damaged your memory?

Michael
Click to expand...

It has been proffered that because new Hampshire's vote comes just five days after Iowa's this time around vs. eight days after Iowa's in '04, that last night's winners may experience a larger bump than in elections past.
 
I guess that there is some logic in the process, at least from the Republican pov. If you can't be a white conservative religious family guy with high morals and win in moralistic white rural conservative religious backwater states, why continue?

obeisance?
That's like taking a bow or groveling isn't it? Being obedient, but to what?
I'm not sure I understand the concluding paragraph of the link. Looks good in print though.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Fundies don't like Mormons.

What's the big news out of Iowa?

They really don't like New York wiseguys.
Click to expand...

If Romney were coming out of Utah he might have a chance, because he would have been consistently conservative. Of course, if he were coming out of Utah he would have no chance in the general because the MSM would play him as the Utah nutjob cultist right-winger, whereas having been the governor of Massachusetts insulates him from those charges but inevitably made him flip-flop. I hope he convinced people it's okay to vote for a Mormon because I know many fine ones.
 
Bill Clinton in Iowa 92 was an aberration where none of the front runners bothered to campaign it means nothing compared to today.
 
It would be nice for Romney to lose if only to prove money can't buy me love.

Or in this case, the Republican nominee.
 
TheJim said:
Bill Clinton in Iowa 92 was an aberration where none of the front runners bothered to campaign it means nothing compared to today.
Click to expand...

My point was that her loss in not without precedent. Both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush also lost in Iowa and went on to ascend to the presidency. It's happened before, it may happen again.

Rush ought not to go around counting his chickens before they hatch. Besides, without the Clintons, he may not have the career that he has now.

Michael
 
Mitt has gone dark in South Carolina and Florida:

Up on television in Florida and South Carolina through yesterday, Mitt Romney is not running any television ads in those states now, according to a Republican with knowledge of the traffic purchases in the state.

Romney's campaign hasn't booked any television time in those states, either.
Click to expand...

Sounds like he's making his stand in Michigan, but the lack of any attention to the states beyond that says he's sensing it's hopeless.

Bob Novak says the campaign's at "death's door":

A loss for Romney in Michigan, which now looks likely, will eliminate him.
Click to expand...
 
Romney still has the most delegates, so if the convention were held now he'd win the nomination.
 
Well if Romney takes a dive, who's left on the right? McCain might tank outside NH. Then there's just Huckleberry and Giuliani. If Giuliani tanks in Florida and California, he can't become the nominee just by winning New Yawk.
 
steverino said:
Well if Romney takes a dive, who's left on the right? McCain might tank outside NH. Then there's just Huckleberry and Giuliani. If Giuliani tanks in Florida and California, he can't become the nominee just by winning New Yawk.
Click to expand...

McCain's considered the frontrunner at InTrade now, although not an overwhelming favorite (36, versus Giuliani's 27 and Huckabee's 18).
 
coalesce said:
Someone should remind Rush that others have lost Iowa and still went on to become president.

Does the name Bill Clinton in 1992 ring a bell, Rush, or has all that hillbilly heroin damaged your memory?

Michael
Click to expand...

He was talking about the "inevitable" candidates. Bill wasn't one of them.

Another liberal who loses against Rush. Lots of those.

(coalesce)

Rush ought not to go around counting his chickens before they hatch. Besides, without the Clintons, he may not have the career that he has now.
Click to expand...

Another liberal fallacy. Rush was popular before the Clintons and after. As he says, his popularity isn't determined by who's in the White House.
 
Brainster said:
McCain's considered the frontrunner at InTrade now, although not an overwhelming favorite (36, versus Giuliani's 27 and Huckabee's 18).
Click to expand...

Brainster, do you really think the John McCain has any chance at being the Republican nominee? If so, what is your percentage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom