Romney 2012

[David]

I think this piece from "Hot Air" is spot on. 2012 becomes Romney vs. Palin if she runs. A lot of people will express their love for Sarah but vote for Romney. Romney has his faults. We sliced and diced it all last year. But, admit it, Romney just fits the Presidency we will need in 2012. He is the adult businessman who Americans will turn to to help fix this mess.

Palin has her hard core fans who see absolutely no wrong with the woman. They are loud. Appreciative. Small in number. I love Sarah. Run for the Senate from Alaska and take out Mark Begich. But sarah Palin simply is not fit to be President. Yet. Love her. Hope she doesn't push this battle in 2012. It will make for a BRUTAL GOP primary.

Romney’s 2012 secret weapon: Sarah Palin?



Deep thoughts from lefty E.J. Dionne. It all makes perfect sense now.

First, compared with Palin, Romney is a plausible president. Many conservatives won’t say that publicly for fear of alienating Palin or her followers, but they believe it. Suddenly, Romney’s looking like a bit — or more than a bit — of a technocrat becomes an asset to him.

Second, Romney is a kind of front-runner for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, and Palin’s huge presence in the media blocks out alternatives to Romney (notably Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who appeared at CPAC today). The media don’t have much time or room for a long list of GOP candidates, and the media obsession with Palin leaves space for only one other candidate. Romney has the best claim on that spot.

Third, I am absolutely convinced that Palin will not run for president, but that it’s in her interest not to say so until the very last moment. Attention is what she needs for all her other enterprises, and being a possible candidate for as long as possible will get her lots of attention. Romney wants her out there as long as possible as his blocking back. This will make it harder and harder for the alternative to him to emerge.

There’s some sense to that. Like it or not, the prefab narrative for the 2012 primaries is Palin vs. anti-Palin, partly because the media wants/needs a moderate opposite their Grim Reaper of “true conservatism” and partly because everyone likes a simplistic binary “hero vs. villain” storyline. Huckabee’s too much like her to qualify as anti-Palin — he’s rural, Christian, and all that other supposedly bad stuff — but Mitt, as a wealthy northeastern child of privilege, fits the role to a T. And of course he’s almost certainly running, so all that’s left to lock in the storyline is for Sarahcuda herself to declare her candidacy. But she has no incentive to do that anytime soon: Like Dionne says, she gets plenty of buzz from the will-she-or-won’t-she speculation, and there’s no point in declaring early when the economy could turn around in a year and start pushing down unemployment, making The One’s reelection all but inevitable. Best to hang back, tease the possibility, and stay out for as long as possible. In fact, if she does decide to run, she has every reason to declare later than usual so that her candidacy comes off looking as some sort of deux ex machina designed to excite a conservative base that’s unhappy with its choices.

Long story short, as long as Palin’s undecided, the primaries will be about her versus Romney, which makes things difficult for Huck, Gingrich, Thune, and everyone else trying to find a niche. Pawlenty has an especially tough challenge since, unlike Huckabee, he doesn’t slide easily into the Palin slot. The fact that he’s northern and not quite as ostentatious about his faith as Palin and Huck makes him more of a rival to Romney as the anti-Palin (his blue-collar cred notwithstanding), although that could change if Huck and Sarahcuda both decide against running, thus leaving the media with a blue-collar/white-collar narrative to cast instead.

An exit question I don’t think I’ve ever asked before: Assuming that Palin did, for whatever reason, decide early that she wasn’t running, whom would she likely endorse? I honestly have no idea.

SOURCE

[schaabdl]

Romney is cabinet material and he will be slammed on health care as to what he did in MA. Too much of a policy wonk for the tea parties at this time.

[Hawkscall]

I don't think Romney is "it". I don't know who is, but not him. C

[schaabdl]

Methinks EJ Dionne may be hoping for Romney. I'm like Hawk - I like Romney, but I don't think he is the leader the conservatives will demand.

[Irish flu]

Romney wants to "take a weed whacker to regulation." I wonder if he thinks Phil Gramm didn't go far enough in '99.

Guy gives me the willies.

[etex211]

Massachusetts health care: Romney is disqualified from being president.

[David]

Step by step, Romney lining up support for 2012

SOURCE

[evan316]

Originally Posted by David

Step by step, Romney lining up support for 2012

SOURCE

So is Sarah and she is a bunch better on this then romney. Romney is one of the good ole boys in the RNC, to much rino, not enough Conservative in that back bone.

I would also love to see the NJ Governor running, I don't think anyone presently out there can match him for back bone and getting it done.

[Hawkscall]

Good grief!!! Does everyone in the Republican party have their head in the sand, or somewhere else????
c

[Irish flu]

Romney is a case. Looks sorta handsome at first sight but he has a weird sort of body language and delivery. Many, many voters are swayed by that stuff.

I grew up in the Mormon church and my ancestors almost certainly rubbed elbows with Romney's in the expat Mormon polygamist community in Juarez, MX. Guy has 'nice Mormon man' syndrome. Aggressively cheerful. A tad shallow.

[annett]

Romney is throwing his support and whatever else behind McCain's reelection. That is an automatic disqualification for the office of the presidency. Besides, what can he possibly offer that he hasn't already?

"Its all the same, no new tale to tell." Love & Rockets

[schaabdl]

Romney's endorsement makes no sense - he owed no loyality to McCain, unlike Palin. This is how you judge endorsements within context.

[David]

Early ’12 favorite is Romney
By R.G. Ratcliffe - Houston Chronicle

In the category of it’s never too early to start looking, a new poll found Mitt Romney is the early favorite in Texas for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

The survey by Public Policy Polling of North Carolina found Romney leading with 32 percent support, followed by Mike Huckabee at 29 percent and 23 percent for Sarah Palin.

Huckabee is up 32 percent to 30 percent with conservative voters, but Romney is romping with self-identified moderates: 40 percent to 22 percent.

Palin is more popular with men than women. She gets 26 percent of the male vote and 21 percent of the female vote.

The survey of 400 likely Republican primary voters was conducted Feb. 19-21 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.



Find this article at:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/politics/85750192.html

[David]

In the days immediately before and after passage of the landmark health care reform bill, Mitt Romney responded so forcefully as to suggest his own political fate is tied to the new law.

It may well be.

Just as health care, or “Obamacare,” as it is derided on the right, hangs over this year’s midterm elections, it is already casting a shadow on the 2012 presidential contest — and its GOP front-runner. What was once thought to be an asset for Romney, his passage as Massachusetts governor of a health care mandate for the state’s residents, now poses a potentially serious threat to his White House hopes.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz0jcTuNKkg

[schaabdl]

I think HC kills any chance of Mr. Romney even coming close to the nomination much less the presidency. Besides, he is the chosen one of the GOP elite and that brand t is just not flying very well these days.

[etex211]

If the Republicans nominate Romney, then they may as well nominate Dole or McCain again.

[etex211]

Originally Posted by etex211

If the Republicans nominate Romney, then they may as well nominate Dole or McCain again.

quoting myself from 32 months ago...

[schaabdl]

Unfortunately, the method of nomination within the GOP favors Romney. For those who think I never give DIMS credit - their proportional allocation of delegates is far better for nomination than the winner takes all used in most states by the GOP.

[Bemused]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Unfortunately, the method of nomination within the GOP favors Romney. For those who think I never give DIMS credit - their proportional allocation of delegates is far better for nomination than the winner takes all used in most states by the GOP.

So you oppose the continuation of the Electoral Collge winner take all allocations and a move to proportional allocation of electoral votes. Right?

[schaabdl]

Originally Posted by Bemused

So you oppose the continuation of the Electoral Collge winner take all allocations and a move to proportional allocation of electoral votes. Right?

I support the EC for general election and the states can separately determine if they want to choose winner take all or proportionate - and at least 2 maybe 4 states do this. I oppose elimination of the EC. Nothing needed to change constitution. I haven't done this exercise for awhile but I don't think there is any election that would change. I think the Dims would hate this more if they had to share CA and NY!

I think for party nominee selection it makes sense given the likelihood of pluarity of results that are typical.