Okay, I'm calling it. Romney's toast.

[Dorian Gray]

Either you're 80 years old, or you've interviewed a lot of 80 year-olds, or you may not know what you're talking about and should probably revisit your starting assumptions. Especially if you're reaching a conclusion as implausible as the one quoted above.

That's funny. I was about to accuse him of being 4 years old.

 

[NoahFence]

Yeah but get this: If you look at Nixon's domestic accomplishments through the lens of GOPNutville2012, in addition to the fact that he tried to achieve comprehensive government healthcare, Nixon was a goddamn commie.

Interesting links in that it goes to show that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Just update numbers to reflect today's costs, flip-flop where it states party affiliation and you've got an article written for tomorrow's blogs.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Politicians opposing desegregation were pretty horrible, and that was within the last 80 years. The resistance to the Civil Rights movement in general was worse than the current Conservative movement.

In 1957 a well known, influential, and highly popular Senator named Strom Thurmond held the longest filibuster in Senate history. It lasted 24 hours and 18 minutes. He did it to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the single most important Civil Rights legislation in this nation's history, for all purpose the law that created the concept of Civil Rights. He went on to oppose further civil right laws in 1964 and 1965. In 1964 he actually switched political parties due to his opposition to civil rights. It should be pointed that by this time Strom Thurmond already had an adult illegitimate daughter he never until the day he died from an affair with his 16 year old at the time African American maid. So apparently black people weren't good enough to vote, but perfectly okay to stick your junk in.

Strum Thurmond stayed an elected member of Congress until 2002, holding the highest position in the Senate throughout most of the 80s, and the Republican party practically went into mourning when he died the next year, and upon his death he was widely praised by his political party members.

So six years is all that separates the political careers of the first African American President of the United States and that of the leading opponent of denying even the most basic rights to African Americans.

 

[R.Mackey]

Nixon was a crook and a dirty tricks player, to be sure, but as bad as the bunch of neaderthals we're stuck with now? When did he ever talk about rape like Akin? Or "kill the poor" like Ryan?

I love it! Romney is such a cipher that he's being compared unfavorably to Nixon!

C'mon guys, Romney's a schmuck, but he ain't no Sith Lord.

Nixon's actual record on social policy is much more liberal than that. He would be considered a moderate progressive based on what he ACTUALLY did.

Yeah but get this: If you look at Nixon's domestic accomplishments through the lens of GOPNutville2012, in addition to the fact that he tried to achieve comprehensive government healthcare, Nixon was a goddamn commie.

Yeah. However, you can't assess Nixon's social welfare programs objectively without understanding the Southern Strategy. Nixon's policies were purely strategic in nature rather than being driven by ideology -- if anything he dragged his feet on social reforms, going with half-measures when it suited his purposes. Besides breaking from the Goldwater branch of his party, he carried out whatever it took to isolate Wallace and splinter the Southern Democratic stranglehold on state and local government. Successfully, too. Were it not for this opportunity, he never would have supported things like expanded school desegregation if it didn't offer a strategic advantage.

Now, you may say that results count more than intent, and some in these benighted and revisionary times will diminish the "dirty tricks" as mere electioneering. But in actual fact this kind of executive overreach is a much more serious threat to the Constitution and the survival of the Republic than mere quibbles over the size of social spending. Hence my assertion that Nixon was far worse than the clowns the GOP currently has on the stage, noxious as they may be.

Even if elected, even if they carry the Legislature too, I don't see that Romney is likely to destroy the Constitution. He may re-wreck the economy, but I frankly don't think he's even interested in civil rights issues. I suspect he only brings things like "personhood" and "defense of {straight, religiously-motivated} marriage" as part of his portfolio of pander.

Irrelevant anyway, because as I said in the OP, he's toast. I fear no toast.

 

[varwoche]

Irrelevant anyway, because as I said in the OP, he's toast. I fear no toast.

I'm hereby counting on you RM, not to be getting my hopes up only to be dashed on election day.

 

[Baylor]

I'm hereby counting on you RM, not to be getting my hopes up only to be dashed on election day.

Don't worry,I called it three years ago

 

[Puppycow]

Paul Ryan fans now worried that the Romney taint will rub off on their golden boy:

Among some Paul Ryan backers, disappointment at Romney campaign trajectory

Conservatives had hoped that Mitt Romney’s choice of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (Wis.) as his running mate would make Romney act more like Ryan — bold, specific, confident.

Instead, in the six weeks since Ryan became the GOP vice presidential nominee — and particularly in the three weeks since the Republican National Convention — there has been mounting concern among Republicans that the pick has made Ryan look more like Romney — vague, cautious and limited to preset talking points.

Dissatisfaction with the trajectory of the campaign seems highest among Ryan’s most ardent backers. They view Romney’s campaign as having doubled back to a cautious strategy, avoiding Ryan’s trademark big ideas, and hoping President Obama will beat himself.

“I was wrong. When Paul Ryan was picked, I really thought this meant that the Romney campaign was shifting gears and was going to have a debate about big issues,” said Michael Tanner, an expert on health care and the budget at the libertarian Cato Institute.

 

[Puppycow]

Then why are the polls still so close?

I posted this in another thread, but I'll post it again here.

Ignore the national polls. If the national poll was what counted, Al Gore would have been president.

Look at the State level polls that came out today:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Of the state level polls released today, Romney leads in one, Montana, a very red state, by 9 points.
Obama leads by
6 in Colorado
4 in North Carolina
7 in Nevada
7 in Iowa
5 in Florida
12 in Michigan
12 in Wisconsin
8 in Pennsylvania
8 in Minnesota

And he doesn't need all of those states to win.

Of course, things could change between now and election day, but as it stands right now, Obama is firmly in the driver's seat

 

[timhau]

Of the state level polls released today, Romney leads in one, Montana, a very red state, by 9 points.
Obama leads by
6 in Colorado
4 in North Carolina
7 in Nevada
7 in Iowa
5 in Florida
12 in Michigan
12 in Wisconsin
8 in Pennsylvania
8 in Minnesota

And he doesn't need all of those states to win.

Of those states, first five are considered toss-ups in RCP's electoral college map. If the states they count as Obama's or Romneys go like they predict, Obama needs only 23 electoral college votes from the toss-up states to win. That means that of those five states Romney has to win Florida, or he's toast. If he loses North Carolina, he can afford to lose either Iowa or Nevada and still get an even 270 votes; he also ends up at 270 if he loses Colorado, Iowa, and Nevada but wins North Carolina and Florida.

Of course that math only comes to play if Romney wins the rest of the toss-ups, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia. Obama has a clear lead in the polls in the last two; the situation in NH is closer, but it's only for 4 electoral votes.

 

[Upchurch]

Paul Ryan fans now worried that the Romney taint will rub off on their golden boy:

Among some Paul Ryan backers, disappointment at Romney campaign trajectory

Yeah, because that's his problem.

 

[eeyore1954]

Here ya go.

I did not look is it Chris Christy?

Although once I clicked on quote I can read the link and my question is moot.

 

[eeyore1954]

But seriously:



Yes. The short memory of the US electorate, as well as its obsession with meaningless things. All it would take is one gaffe or one bad photo op involving Obama during the ~week before the election to swing it.

People are nuts. They'll do anything.

I am in agreement that things can change rapidly but I think this could have been called even before Romney went into the toaster and he has done a lot himself to make sure the toast gets burnt.

 

[Olowkow]

Romney's toast.

 

[Muldur]

Why do you assume that the poster meant "the living memory of an average maximum life span human being" and not, oh I don't know, the living memory of that poster?!

It seems you made that assumption just to be uncivil....

And, ironically, while making that assumption, you accuse the poster of making unfounded assumptions!

Eh, I'll let him have that one...I probably should have said "modern" memory.

In terms of "living" memory, if they want to talk about things like Segregation, etc, I'd point out that a great deal of that was actually the old "Dixiecrats" and their ilk, not Republicans.

 

[Muldur]

I don't think it is, and looking at the demographic development, it will never again be. They are trying to whip their supporters into a 2008 Obama level euphoria, but there just aren't enough of them any more (also they did it so ham-handedly that you could give them bread mittens and call it a sandwich). There is no ground to gain on the right. Everyone who supports their current policies is already voting for them, as is everyone to the right of them. And the always-republican base is shrinking.

Conversely, the support for Obama is nowhere near as "euphoric" (as you put it) as it was in 08. He has high negatives on a number of key issues, which leads me to think that this is fast becoming a "lesser of two evils" election for Democrats, as opposed to the TP-driven surge of passionate support for Republicans.

Here in Missouri, for example, the support just keeps swarming to Akin, despite his complete moral degeneracy on just about every issue, because we have a large number of TP drones, and they're REALLY fired up.

 

[Muldur]

I'm just inclined to believe the Republicans will blame any loss to Romney and not on unpopular Republican policies.

Unless it turns into a Congressional rout as well, which there is a (slim but definite) chance of happening.

 

[Muldur]

I love it! Romney is such a cipher that he's being compared unfavorably to Nixon!

C'mon guys, Romney's a schmuck, but he ain't no Sith Lord.

No, he's the "good cop" to the "bad cop" of Ryan, Akin, et al. He's the sugar coating on the proverbial cyanide pill. At least he's supposed to be. But he keeps opening his mouth and letting his real intentions and affiliations be known, tearing holes in his disguise worse than a Visitor getting scratched in the face.

Yeah. However, you can't assess Nixon's social welfare programs objectively without understanding the Southern Strategy. Nixon's policies were purely strategic in nature rather than being driven by ideology -- if anything he dragged his feet on social reforms, going with half-measures when it suited his purposes. Besides breaking from the Goldwater branch of his party, he carried out whatever it took to isolate Wallace and splinter the Southern Democratic stranglehold on state and local government. Successfully, too. Were it not for this opportunity, he never would have supported things like expanded school desegregation if it didn't offer a strategic advantage.

Yet he still did. He had enough sense of Realpolitik to not fight what couldn't really be fought. The current TP-controlled Republicans will fight to the last bit of scorched Earth for their demented policies.

Now, you may say that results count more than intent, and some in these benighted and revisionary times will diminish the "dirty tricks" as mere electioneering. But in actual fact this kind of executive overreach is a much more serious threat to the Constitution and the survival of the Republic than mere quibbles over the size of social spending. Hence my assertion that Nixon was far worse than the clowns the GOP currently has on the stage, noxious as they may be.

Nixon may have done dirty tricks, but is there anything like what happened in 00 and 04 to suggest that he outright STOLE elections?

Even if elected, even if they carry the Legislature too, I don't see that Romney is likely to destroy the Constitution. He may re-wreck the economy, but I frankly don't think he's even interested in civil rights issues. I suspect he only brings things like "personhood" and "defense of {straight, religiously-motivated} marriage" as part of his portfolio of pander.

At this point in history, I could give a rat's you-know-what about most "Constitutional" issues. I'll even put up with the pro-gay and pro-abortion BS from the Democrats in order to get some fiscal justice and keep the economy from imploding worse than it has already.

Irrelevant anyway, because as I said in the OP, he's toast. I fear no toast.

Let's hope you're right. I'm not convinced.

 

[R.Mackey]

Yet he still did. He had enough sense of Realpolitik to not fight what couldn't really be fought. The current TP-controlled Republicans will fight to the last bit of scorched Earth for their demented policies.

I never accused Nixon of being stupid. Just evil.

Nixon may have done dirty tricks, but is there anything like what happened in 00 and 04 to suggest that he outright STOLE elections?

Ehhhh... you've got this quite backwards. W's "theft" of the election from Gore was done in court, and while lacking precedent and cohesion with the spirit of electoral law, was totally legal. He won primarily because Gore's legal team wasn't up to the challenge.

In 2004, I don't know what you're complaining about. Kerry lost pure and simple.

Contrast this to the "plumbers" actually burglarizing and bugging their opposition. And the retaliation from his Justice Department as he tried to cover it up. He didn't even have to do that, given the chaos of '68 that gave Nixon the win, and his easy, easy romp in '72. Imagine what he'd have been capable of in a close race?

By contrast, W was harmless, naive, and undisciplined.

At this point in history, I could give a rat's you-know-what about most "Constitutional" issues. I'll even put up with the pro-gay and pro-abortion BS from the Democrats in order to get some fiscal justice and keep the economy from imploding worse than it has already.

Yeah, well, you're entitled to that opinion. Recessions and depressions can be ridden out. Destruction of civil liberties is a whole different ballgame.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I love it! Romney is such a cipher that he's being compared unfavorably to Nixon!

C'mon guys, Romney's a schmuck, but he ain't no Sith Lord.




Yeah. However, you can't assess Nixon's social welfare programs objectively without understanding the Southern Strategy. Nixon's policies were purely strategic in nature rather than being driven by ideology -- if anything he dragged his feet on social reforms, going with half-measures when it suited his purposes. Besides breaking from the Goldwater branch of his party, he carried out whatever it took to isolate Wallace and splinter the Southern Democratic stranglehold on state and local government. Successfully, too. Were it not for this opportunity, he never would have supported things like expanded school desegregation if it didn't offer a strategic advantage.

Now, you may say that results count more than intent, and some in these benighted and revisionary times will diminish the "dirty tricks" as mere electioneering. But in actual fact this kind of executive overreach is a much more serious threat to the Constitution and the survival of the Republic than mere quibbles over the size of social spending. Hence my assertion that Nixon was far worse than the clowns the GOP currently has on the stage, noxious as they may be.

Of course Nixon was a communist by modern standards. Way to the left of Obama. Why do you think he went to china? Clearly he was trying to defect.

 

[R.Mackey]

OK, I called it...

Duly toasted.

A toast!