Romney fundraiser to rich donors: You don’t want a Huckabee/Palin ticket at a brokered convention, do you?

posted at 4:35 pm on April 3, 2012 by Allahpundit

Are New York’s Republican glitterati really such panicky chumps that this longer-than-longshot scenario was enough to get them to toss bags of money at Mitt? C’mon.

[O]n March 14 and 15, Romney had raised over $3 million in New York and Connecticut. … The Romney campaign had a clever pitch for the event. Schmoozing with his money pals before the events, a Romney fund-raiser pointed out that “slightly more than half the delegates” to the GOP convention at Tampa “are evangelicals.” These true-believer conservatives are averse not only to Romney but to semi-reasonable types like Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels. As a result, said this fund-raiser, the “responsible Republican guys” are “starting to realize” that at a brokered convention “it’s not going to be Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan, a ticket they could really love. It’s probably Huckabee-Palin or Palin-Huckabee.” That was enough to scare the Wall Street crowd into getting out their checkbooks.

That’s from the new Mike Allen/Evan Thomas e-book on the campaign. Point one: Why would evangelicals demand Huckabee or Palin when they could nominate Santorum? Given the odds against him now, it’d be a genuine accomplishment if he managed to hold Romney below a clear majority of delegates before the convention. He’ll be debate-tested and trail-honed, and needless to say, he’s the gold standard on “values” for social cons. Why jettison him for Huck or Sarahcuda, each of whom is more of a media presence at this point than a political one?

Point two: Last I checked, evangelicals want to beat Obama as badly as non-evangelicals do. They’re not going to roll the dice on anyone whose electability is questionable, especially since a dark-horse nominee would have just two months to boost his/her favorables before election day. That’s a major obstacle for Palin even though she remains very popular within the party. It’s less of a problem for Huckabee, who’s also popular among Republicans and came out of the 2008 campaign with far less media damage to his image than Palin. Popular or no, though, he has no campaign operation and famously doesn’t enjoy raising money. On what planet does it make more sense for an Obama-hating Christian delegate to hand him the keys to the campaign instead of holding their nose and taking their chances with Romney? Maybe, if there was some sort of serious floor revolt in Tampa, Mitt could be pressured to put Huck on the ticket — that’d actually be a nice regional/religious/class balance — but the only reason to gamble hugely on a dark-horse nominee would be if the convention wanted to bet the election on a supremely important principle like entitlement reform and balancing the budget. That might justify nominating Christie or Ryan or Daniels. But Huck?

Never mind all that, though. The piece you need to read to polish this off is Ryan Lizza’s delegate model for the rest of the GOP primaries. According to his calculations, with Romney needing 1,144 for a clear majority, he should finish June with … 1,122. Good news for Huck? Not quite: There’ll be 598 unbound delegates in Tampa, only 22 of whom would have to break for Mitt to wrap thinks up. Exit question: Huckabee/Palin 2016?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

No, he’s not stupid, while I fully understand your reasoning, I can’t make the leap to not voting for the alternative either. I appreciated that you value your vote, I just can’t take the chance on what an Obama, unworried about reelection, will do.

Cindy Munford on April 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Where does it say he was paid staff? HMMM. Let’s speculate some more. And even if it was, you assume that everyone of his staff have the same opinion as him on the other candidates.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Keep spinning. No one can tell, really. I swear.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

I’m a little tired of the “Romney was an outSTANDing governor…but his record doesn’t count because MA is a blue state” bullshit. Actually REALLY tired of it.

ddrintn on April 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Exactly. Everything Romney did as gov doesn’t count because it’s a blue state, but he was really good at doing what doesn’t count. That’s Mittbot logic in a nutshell.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Wait a second. Isn’t Politico one of those outlets that helped Romney get to the position he’s in today? What was their motive then?

ddrintn on April 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Yes, Politico has gone out of its way to help Romney by heavily reporting on every “weath” and “out of touch” statement and consistently pointing out how much Romney spends in relation to the other candidates.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Jump, little doggies, jump! The Obamamedia is ringing the bell! Jump now!

Rational Thought on April 3, 2012 at 5:27 PM

JohnGalt23 on April 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Thanks..That is good news..:)

Dire Straits on April 3, 2012 at 5:27 PM

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I hear the buzzing of a mosquito.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

HUH I thought it was a Gnat …..

conservative tarheel on April 3, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Judging by Romney’s absolutely abysmal judicial record in Massachusetts, Hell Yes.

Norwegian on April 3, 2012 at 5:19 PM

OK, but there’s actually an incentive for a Mass. governor to appoint liberal judges. What’s the incentive for Romney to do that as president? He’d still have another election to consider, and liberals are more likely to vote for Zombie Reagan than Romney. Conversely, Obama’s already let us know that he’ll have more flexibility this time around, making Kagan and Sotomayor the best case scenarios for his picks.

I’m not saying the two would necessarily pick vastly different justices, but I don’t see how you can add all of that up and assume Romney would be worse. If that’s at all possible, then Obama clearly isn’t as radically liberal as we’ve been making him out to be.

Esthier on April 3, 2012 at 5:27 PM

I see you have received the latest memo from Obama HQ about the “war on women” meme. Next time try not to be so obvious.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Says the self admitted Obama supporter/voter.

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:27 PM

So let me get this straight. There’s a contingent of ABR folks that have been posting for the last two months about a brokered convention and their desire to see one. Even more so lately when it looks like Santorum has lost it. So for two months we’ve heard calls for a brokered convention……….When Romney brings it up…..The response at Hot Air…..”Hey why would Romney bring up a brokered convention!”

Minnfidel on April 3, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Call me skeptical about this story. FTR, I think a Romney/Huckabee ticket would be formidable. As much as I loathed his populist shtick in 2008, it’s undeniable he has the gift for the gab, has broadened his audience thanks to his popular show, and ironically, does a good job of articulating conservative principles in a way that’s not scary to “moderates”. Presumably Evans (who thinks Obama is God) knows how formidable this ticket would be too. Since this e-book is also responsible for the story that Perry was singing in the bathroom, something I’m not convinced happened, I’m not going to accept this weak story as the gospel truth. Sooooo, putting on tinfoil hat: Maybe Evans is trying to stir up bad blood between the two camps?

Buy Danish on April 3, 2012 at 5:27 PM

ddrintn on April 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM

No matter what they say…RomneyCare still happened on his watch…and he is unapologetic.

The Conservative base is not impressed.

kingsjester on April 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Romney is at 34% approval nationwide. Keep phooking that chicken Mittens, by labor day you’ll be in single digits.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:20 PM

And you’ll do everything to make that happen–won’t you ?
Get the hell out of the foxhole – no one needs your friendly fire.

FlaMurph on April 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

No, he’s not stupid, while I fully understand your reasoning, I can’t make the leap to not voting for the alternative either. I appreciated that you value your vote, I just can’t take the chance on what an Obama, unworried about reelection, will do.

Cindy Munford on April 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

He is stupid because he can’t understand in his tiny little brain that one can vote for Obama yet not support his actions.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Senators O’Donnell, Buck, and Angle would like a word with you on that point.
KingGold on April 3, 2012 at 4:51 PM
Senator Fiorina and Governor Whitman want to chime in as well. Senator Murkowski, on the other hand, is sitting in the corner laughing her head off.
alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:07 PM

She didn’t even Endorse Whitman or Angle.

Dan Pet on April 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

I’m a little tired of the “Romney was an outSTANDing governor…but his record doesn’t count because MA is a blue state” bullshit. Actually REALLY tired of it.

ddrintn on April 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM

The other line that’s used, and cpaulus also brought it in, is the inevitable bringing in of Reagan to attempt to make Mitt into Reagan’s political equivalence. The first line is laughable, and the second line is infuriating.

INC on April 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

I just can’t take the chance on what an Obama, unworried about reelection, will do.

Cindy Munford on April 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

+ 100..Well said Cindy..:)

Dire Straits on April 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

From what I’ve read the Romney campaign is tightly disciplined and I believe his closest aides are from MA. As I said, I don’t think for a minute that anyone on his campaign goes rogue.

INC on April 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM

No, because that would make him a bad manager. So he’s either a bad manager or he’s got no problem with his staff dissing the very voters he needs to woo. Pick one.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

No, he’s not stupid, while I fully understand your reasoning, I can’t make the leap to not voting for the alternative either. I appreciated that you value your vote, I just can’t take the chance on what an Obama, unworried about reelection, will do.

Cindy Munford on April 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

understand both of you …. may 8th I am voting for Sarah ….
Nov …. I am voting for the nominee …

conservative tarheel on April 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM

From what I’ve read the Romney campaign is tightly disciplined and I believe his closest aides are from MA. As I said, I don’t think for a minute that anyone on his campaign goes rogue.

INC on April 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Where does it say that the Romney fundraiser was on his staff, was paid, and/or was from MA?

Oh it doesn’t. But let’s not let facts get in the way of our conspiritorial conjecture.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM

In other words, the concept of a brokered Convention falls squarely under Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution.

SWalker on April 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Article II section 1 deals with electing the president. There were no brokered conventions at the outset of the republic’s foundation because there were no conventions. States would individually select electors, and whoever got the most votes from those electors would be the president, and whoever got the second-most votes would be the VP. The whole “brokered convention” tradition started in-earnest in the post-reconstruction period during which our two-party system became firmly entrenched.

gryphon202 on April 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Keep spinning. No one can tell, really. I swear.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Keep making assumptions with no basis in fact.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM

I know you’re a Mormon and your blind love for a fellow Mormon is getting in the way of rational thinking. That, and you’re an idiot.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Says the self admitted Mormon hater/Obama voter.

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM

That said, Romney didn’t use that language, some “supporter” did. No evidence at all that Romney would charactize his relationship with them like that at all. This is typical stretching of a non news item to incite anger among the base.

Romney is no more responsible for that comment than Sarah Palin is for any comment you make dissing any other candidate.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Such an adolescent argument that it was one of his hencement that did it…straight out of the blue or as Gomer Pyle would say, “Surprise, surprise, surprise.

“Why yer Hohor, I wuz out playing golf wid da mayer here when dat dirty rat …that innocent man..was snuffed out by my…some bad guy. I tell ya judge -Chicago aint what it’s cracked up to be anymore -here, have a ceegar on me!”

Don L on April 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Get the hell out of the foxhole – no one needs your friendly fire.

FlaMurph on April 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Just like a liberal. If you don’t like what I said, you want to shut me down. It’s uncanny how similar you people are to Obama supporters. And the funny thing is you don’t even realize it.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

I just can’t take the chance on what an Obama, unworried about reelection, will do.

Cindy Munford on April 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Exactly. I just don’t see how anyone could be worse. I’d vote in Clinton, Gore and Kerry before Obama.

Esthier on April 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Wow, I guess this means Willard won’t be guest-hosting for Huck on his new radio show.

james23 on April 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Good luck storming the castle romneybots! Conservatives will lose their values everyday defending this turd until he crashes and burns november 7th.

Flapjackmaka on April 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Says the self admitted Mormon hater/Obama voter.

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM

I don’t hate Mormons. I hate people who blindly follow someone because they share a religion.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Yes, Politico has gone out of its way to help Romney by heavily reporting on every “weath” and “out of touch” statement and consistently pointing out how much Romney spends in relation to the other candidates.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

No, they’ve gone out of their way to point out how Mitt’s the bee’s knees while every other possible GOP alternative is an unelectable joke. What was their motive?

ddrintn on April 3, 2012 at 5:31 PM

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM

It’s a conspiracy!! a conspiracy I tell you!!! Anything making my hero look bad must be a conspiracy!!!!

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:31 PM

You really are the stupidest poster here. And I am including lib4life in that category.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Says the self admitted Obama voter.

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:31 PM

This libertarian deist thinks you are an 0-bot.

cozmo on April 3, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Conservatarian Jew agrees.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 3, 2012 at 5:31 PM

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM

I wrote, From what I’ve read—meaning in the past—not what was in the Rich Lowry piece.

INC on April 3, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Yawn. Typical excuse. It was the evil Democrats that made him do it. Dems made him create Romneycare. Dems made him appoint liberal judges. Dems made him raise taxes. Dems made him ban guns.

I guess when Harry Reid says jump Willard will say how high. Yes, much better than Obama.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:23 PM

If it’s typical it’s only so because it’s reality. Governors can only do what the legislature allows him to do.

Also, how many of Romney’s picks for judges became Obama picks for the federal bench like this one from Palin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Christen

The constraints of Massachusetts, or Alaska for that matter, are different than national politics. Not voting for Romney in the general is akin to voting for Obama. The idea that Obama and Romney are the same is ridiculous.

cpaulus on April 3, 2012 at 5:31 PM

So let me get this straight. There’s a contingent of ABR folks that have been posting for the last two months about a brokered convention and their desire to see one. Even more so lately when it looks like Santorum has lost it. So for two months we’ve heard calls for a brokered convention……….When Romney brings it up…..The response at Hot Air…..”Hey why would Romney bring up a brokered convention!”

Minnfidel on April 3, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Romney speaks as if people will vote for a brokered convention if his blueblood norhteastern bundlers don’t send enough moolah his way. As much as I personally like the idea of a brokered convention, I think the chances of it happening are remote. Romney is playing his rombot fundraisers like a chorus of badly tuned violins.

gryphon202 on April 3, 2012 at 5:31 PM

But let’s not let facts get in the way of our conspiritorial conjecture.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM

What are the facts?

idesign on April 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Such an adolescent argument that it was one of his hencement that did it…straight out of the blue or as Gomer Pyle would say, “Surprise, surprise, surprise.

“Why yer Hohor, I wuz out playing golf wid da mayer here when dat dirty rat …that innocent man..was snuffed out by my…some bad guy. I tell ya judge -Chicago aint what it’s cracked up to be anymore -here, have a ceegar on me!”

Don L on April 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Do you hear black helicopters outside your window?

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Willard Campaign is it’s own worst enemy.

And … they’ll be SHOCKED … SHOCKED I tell ya – when the Conservatives sit at home on their asses in November!

HondaV65 on April 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Politico has gone out of its way to help Romney by heavily reporting on every “weath” and “out of touch” statement

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Yes, of course. It’s the media’s problem for reporting what Mitt said, not Mitt’s problem for saying it.

MittBot=ObamaBot, truly.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Get the hell out of the foxhole – no one needs your friendly fire.

FlaMurph on April 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

What foxhole were you in in January 2010?

ddrintn on April 3, 2012 at 5:33 PM

You make lib4life seem like a Mensa member.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Says the Obama supporter/voter.

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Because I won’t vote for a leftist like Willard? Yeah that makes a lot of sense.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Yes, it does.

cozmo on April 3, 2012 at 5:33 PM

I just can’t take the chance on what an Obama, unworried about reelection, will do.

Cindy Munford on April 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Oh please, stop with the histrionics. What will he do? Lock you up in camps? Burn the constitution? Hire the black panther as his new internal security force?

Seriously, what do you think he’ll do in a second term that he didn’t do or try to do in a first?

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Romney is playing his rombot fundraisers like a chorus of badly tuned violins.

gryphon202 on April 3, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Romney: I got your nose!
Rombots: *tee hee*

Romney: Send me more money!
Rombots: *tee hee* Okay!

steebo77 on April 3, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Call me skeptical about this story. FTR, I think a Romney/Huckabee ticket would be formidable. Maybe Evans is trying to stir up bad blood between the two camps?

Buy Danish on April 3, 2012 at 5:27 PM

.
No- this talk of political dead enders- convention- blah blah blah – has got to stop. We are in a war here and instead of focusing on the enemy- the zombie narratives steal the day. Huckabee? C’mon !

Romney will win the majority of delegates. He wins. Thats it game over- no do overs. He does not have to win Unanimously- ITS TIME TO MOVE ON- and Paul and Gingrich need to go now. let Santorum go to PA for a sentimental win.

Time is wasting -it is battle time.

FlaMurph on April 3, 2012 at 5:34 PM

What are the facts?

idesign on April 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM

The facts are some liberal journalists are quoting an alleged fundraiser of Romney’s was mocking evangelicals, Palin, and Huckabee at an event in New York. He/she wasn’t issuing a press release.

But bend and shape the quote to fit your narrative if you like. Politico would love you to do that.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:34 PM

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Not shame on you – you are on the other side.

FlaMurph on April 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM

He is stupid because he can’t understand in his tiny little brain that one can vote for Obama yet not support his actions.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

STUPIDITY ON PARADE!!!!

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Time is wasting -it is battle time.

FlaMurph on April 3, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Somebody alert Mitt that the battle is with the Left, not the Right.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM

The constraints of Massachusetts, or Alaska for that matter, are different than national politics. Not voting for Romney in the general is akin to voting for Obama. The idea that Obama and Romney are the same is ridiculous.

cpaulus on April 3, 2012 at 5:31 PM

They both created govt health care.
They both banned guns.
They both support higher taxes on “the rich”
They both support CAPnTrade
They both think SS is just fine and needs no reforms.

Yes you’re right, saying they’re the same is kkkkkrazyyyyy talk.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM

* correction: as nice a rhyme as the above is, I mean “what foxhole were you in in 2011?” You know, when a good chunk of GOP voters were being accused of inciting mass murder and other assorted forms of violence. Did Mitt and his myrmidons come out from behind the drapes?

ddrintn on April 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM

It’s funny how many people in this thread are giddy about the idea of throwing away the entire primary process and wishes of everybody that voted in it for a chance to get a backs smokeroom deal to get their favorite non candidate the nomination.

This party has become a joke.

Swerve22 on April 3, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Not shame on you – you are on the other side.

FlaMurph on April 3, 2012 at 5:35 PM

That makes no sense. Try again.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:36 PM

It’s uncanny

how similar you people are to Obama supporters

. And the funny thing is you don’t even realize it.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Says the Obama supporter/voter.

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM

cpaulus on April 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

You see, this is thing with you mittwits and morons. Palin did not willingly appoint a liberal judge to the bench. If you knew anything about her record or the Alaskan State constitution, you’d know why.

First of, according to the Alaskan State constitution, a governor can only appoint a judge to the bench after they had been selected by the State legislature.

Second, the constitution says that, the judge shall be picked from a list of 3 possible nominees, which shall be selected by the Senate and forwarded to the executive office of the governor for appointment.

Third, Palin rejected the state legislature (democrats) nominees twice over. It was only at the third time, she picked a judge, which was the lesser of the evils sent over to her by the Democrat controlled senate.

Get your facts straight!

HerneTheHunter on April 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM

January 2013

Obama prepares to burn America to the ground as he shouts into the microphone ‘All you cracker bastards are mine now’… and I’m gonna stick it in and break it off. My first act will be to nuke two American cities as apology for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Then I’m gonna have a cheeseburger and lecture you about eating salad.

Meanwhile…. Romney will begin touring with Al Gore exchanging the line… I am the former next president of the United States… except Romney substitutes president with asshole.

And we will all go down together….

lm10001 on April 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM

The other line that’s used, and cpaulus also brought it in, is the inevitable bringing in of Reagan to attempt to make Mitt into Reagan’s political equivalence. The first line is laughable, and the second line is infuriating.

INC on April 3, 2012 at 5:28 PM

I said that it was similar but not the same. Reagan was clearly more of a conservative visionary than Romney. He also had a much larger conservative base to work with in California in the 60s than Romney did as governor of Massachusetts. Could Romney have been a better governor of Massachusetts? Of course. Is he Obama? No way. To say that he is is much more disingenuous than comparing his time in MA to Reagan’s in CA.

I’m not a Romney supporter. I worked for the Newt campaign and I’m currently working for a Tea Party campaign for Congress. My frustration is with those who refuse to vote for Romney because they think he’s just a version of Obama. He’s clearly not. His court appointments, along with the rest of his presidency, will be infinitely better than Obama. I don’t blame Romney for winning, I blame the other good candidates out there that didn’t run who should have.

cpaulus on April 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM

It’s a conspiracy!! a conspiracy I tell you!!! Anything making my hero look bad must be a conspiracy!!!!

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:31 PM

You’ll believe what you want. But I’m always glad to point out people who make outrageous statements with no basis in fact.

I know you want to mold every news item about Romney into your narrative, even if you’ve got no facts to support it.

But it’s good to know what gets you fired up.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Romney will win the majority of delegates. He wins. Thats it game over- no do overs. He does not have to win Unanimously- ITS TIME TO MOVE ON- and Paul and Gingrich need to go now. let Santorum go to PA for a sentimental win.

Time is wasting -it is battle time.

FlaMurph on April 3, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Translation: Damn you rubes, when will you finally shut the f**k up and do as you’re told?

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

many people in this thread are giddy about the idea of throwing away the entire primary process

You answer your own question here:

This party has become a joke.

Swerve22 on April 3, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Yup. The whole primary has been one long “Mitt is inevitable!!!!111!1!!1!!” disaster. You’ve won that argument, now show us how well you can win a national election. Prediction: You can’t.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

So once again Now that he got caught as being exactly what we kinew him to be, the Oromney crowd, like the GOP who set him up as RINO de jour, resorts to the bad cop, worst cop dilema.

“You Christian folks don’t really have a choice here, take our unprincipled, pro- abortion, overtly rich, flip-flopping money man, or else you’ll cause grave harm to the country.

Didn’t we hear this same default crapola when they defended McCain?

Don L on April 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Romney is unfavoable in VA, ohio and florida. And like the romneybots said, those numbers dont change. Romney isnt going anywhere. Good luck bots.

Flapjackmaka on April 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM

I don’t hate Mormons. I hate people who blindly follow someone because they share a religion.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Like Santorum supporters?

Oh, and let’s not forget this little gem of yours.

You forgot, I also hate Mormons.

angryed on January 20, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Wow… he really said that? And you wonder why there’s a wedge in the party…

firegnome on April 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM

This libertarian deist thinks you are an 0-bot.

cozmo on April 3, 2012 at 5:23 PM

I think you’re a big govt statist.

besser tot als rot on April 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Yes, of course. It’s the media’s problem for reporting what Mitt said, not Mitt’s problem for saying it.

MittBot=ObamaBot, truly.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Point missed. If Politico wants Romney to win, then why isn’t it ignoring any negative coverage and only supplying positive coverage. Oh wait.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM

You see, this is thing with you mittwits and morons. Palin did not willingly appoint a liberal judge to the bench. If you knew anything about her record or the Alaskan State constitution, you’d know why.

First of, according to the Alaskan State constitution, a governor can only appoint a judge to the bench after they had been selected by the State legislature.

Second, the constitution says that, the judge shall be picked from a list of 3 possible nominees, which shall be selected by the Senate and forwarded to the executive office of the governor for appointment.

Third, Palin rejected the state legislature (democrats) nominees twice over. It was only at the third time, she picked a judge, which was the lesser of the evils sent over to her by the Democrat controlled senate.

Get your facts straight!

HerneTheHunter on April 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Oh you mean that she had to work within the constraints of state politics like I said? You just proved my point. MA’s nominating process might be different, but the result is the same. An extremely liberal legislature, much, much more liberal than Palin’s Alaskan one, forced Romney to nominate Democrats.

cpaulus on April 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM

I don’t hate Mormons. I hate people who blindly follow someone because they share a religion.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:30 PM

you are hateful period. you should go be a prop for Obama, as in help build the background for him when he gives speeches, you know all those brainwashed idiots who sit behind him and nod in a frenzy, well, some sleep or yawn, true, but those are probably just the paid props, not the ones with conviction such as yourself :-)…

jimver on April 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Translation: Damn you rubes, when will you finally shut the f**k up and do as you’re told?

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Are you the Ying to csdevens Yang?

cozmo on April 3, 2012 at 5:41 PM

LOL. Keep phucking that chicken Willard. Your strategy is working great!! Keep insulting your own party while pandering to Democrats. A few more months of this and you’ll be lucky to win Utah.

Women have propelled President Obama to a widening lead over Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney in a dozen swing states, according to a poll released Monday.

The USA Today/Gallup Poll found Obama now enjoys a nine-point advantage over Romney, 51 percent to 42 percent. A month ago, the same poll showed the former Massachusetts governor with a two-point edge over the president.

Much of Obama’s surge could be attributed to a widening gender gap. Women support Obama over Romney, 54 percent to 36 percent, the poll found. Romney’s narrow, 48-47 lead among men is within the poll’s margin of error.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:41 PM

I think you’re a big govt statist.

besser tot als rot on April 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM

And that just goes to show you don’t need to have a brain to get in the door here.

cozmo on April 3, 2012 at 5:42 PM

You forgot, I also hate Mormons.

angryed on January 20, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Billie is too dense to recognize sarcasm. But he’s a Mittbot so I already knew that. Billie, you’re an imbecile. You don’t need to keep proving it. We all get it.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Romney has my vote because his views are closer to my own than Obama’s could ever be. Period. WHEN THE Romney fans play the fear card or try to claim that he is the next Reagan, I just laugh. I am sure that must work on someone, but really, the reality is that Romney is a weak candidate and will probably lose, but has a better chance than the other guys that remain. That is why he got my support after Huntsman dropped out. He has my vote in the general, but I can’t see myself opening up the checkbook or giving time for such a weak candidate. That probably makes me a traitor in the eyes of the RINOs, but oh well.

McDuck on April 3, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Article II section 1 deals with electing the president. There were no brokered conventions at the outset of the republic’s foundation because there were no conventions. States would individually select electors, and whoever got the most votes from those electors would be the president, and whoever got the second-most votes would be the VP. The whole “brokered convention” tradition started in-earnest in the post-reconstruction period during which our two-party system became firmly entrenched.

gryphon202 on April 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM

By which you mean, the first Five presidents. The sixth President of the United States, James Monroe was elected from a brokered convention.

SWalker on April 3, 2012 at 5:43 PM

$5 gas and Willard is losing by 9% in swing states.

ELECTABLE!!!!

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

They’re not going to roll the dice on anyone whose electability is questionable,

Oceania has always been at ware with Eastasia.

Are you really this dumb, AP, or do you just think all of your readers are?

MJBrutus on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Angryed does not hate Mormons. In fact he would support Huntsman over anyone in the current field. The comment of his you quoted was sarcasm.

Kataklysmic on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

So comments from “a Romney fundraiser” are spun by Hot Air to imply that it came from the Romney campaign itself?

Look, every candidate has some pretty idiotic “fund raisers”. Anybody can raise funds for a campaign.

Sheesh. Talk about spin. Hot Air is really in the tank for Obama, aren’t they? I never thought I would see such a thing.

crosspatch on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Romney speaks as if people will vote for a brokered convention if his blueblood norhteastern bundlers don’t send enough moolah his way. As much as I personally like the idea of a brokered convention, I think the chances of it happening are remote. Romney is playing his rombot fundraisers like a chorus of badly tuned violins.

gryphon202 on April 3, 2012 at 5:31 PM

I don’t doubt it’s a fund raising tactic. Stuff like that is hardly new to politics. I just find it somewhat funny that for 2 months there’s been a loud faction at HA clamoring for a brokered convention. When he dares mention it, the reaction from the same people is. “How dare he bring up a brokered convention”!

Minnfidel on April 3, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Point one: Why would evangelicals demand Huckabee or Palin when they could nominate Santorum? Given the odds against him now, it’d be a genuine accomplishment if he managed to hold Romney below a clear majority of delegates before the convention. He’ll be debate-tested and trail-honed, and needless to say, he’s the gold standard on “values” for social cons. Why jettison him for Huck or Sarahcuda, each of whom is more of a media presence at this point than a political one?

More to the point, if we are to accept the premise that New Yorkers think the religious right is icky enough to use it as a fund raising tactic, why use Huck and Palin as the ooga booga candidates when the fund raiser could have simply warned about Santorum? That would have gotten plenty of donors writing checks. Keep in mind this event occurred only 2 weeks ago – at the height of Santorum’s campaigning as a whiny, off-putting, sourpuss.

And FTR, I’m quite certain fund raisers are not “paid” by campaigns.

Buy Danish on April 3, 2012 at 5:45 PM

gryphon202 on April 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM

By which you mean, the first Five presidents. The sixth President of the United States, James Monroe was elected from a brokered convention.

SWalker on April 3, 2012 at 5:43 PM

No, he was elected from a brokered election. It wasn’t clear what would happen if no nominee got a clear majority of votes, but they didn’t have a nomination process distinct from the actual election itself until much later.

gryphon202 on April 3, 2012 at 5:46 PM

angryed,

Who would you rather have who chose to run? Just wondering.

I’m sure you and I, along with everyone else here, can name people we wish had run. But they didn’t. We can hope that there’s a brokered convention, which is what I’m doing, but it’s not likely (it’s never likely.) I guess I don’t get why people here would rather Obama be president than Mitt, which is what not voting will do. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Obamacare exists because of that mindset happening in 2006.

cpaulus on April 3, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Angryed does not hate Mormons. In fact he would support Huntsman over anyone in the current field. The comment of his you quoted was sarcasm.

Kataklysmic on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Why let facts get in the way of a good Mittbot imbecile rant? He really can me amusing to watch.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:47 PM

cpaulus on April 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM

No, not the same at all, you mittwit. etch A. sketch had a choice to make, to pick a nominee of HIS choosing in the first place. He never exercised that choice.

Palin was limited and bound by the constitution of her state. She had no choice but to pick from whatever 3 possible nominees sent to her desk.

There is a difference between having a choice to make and not making it, and not having a choice at all. Big difference.

HerneTheHunter on April 3, 2012 at 5:48 PM

By which you mean, the first Five presidents. The sixth President of the United States, James Monroe was elected from a brokered convention.

SWalker on April 3, 2012 at 5:43 PM

In fact, throughout the history of the United States of America more president have been elected through the process of Brokered convention than not.

SWalker on April 3, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Translation: Damn you rubes, when will you finally shut the f**k up and do as you’re told?

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Hey- you can take a HINT !!!!!!!!!
“Your time is up” – as the operator would say- GET OFF the stage….

Because you don’t have anything constructive or positive to say- so yes- Shut the f**k up already- just as I would say to any liberal. You hate Romney- fine- I can deal with that- You want to shad on the ONLY attempt to REMOVE OMARXIST from office- you’re gonna get “pushback” now-
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

You want a turdfest in Tampa ? You want to leverage a brokered convention threat over Mittens? I say eff u or anyone other liberal propagandists who wants to smear the Fire Obama Now campaign —
LETS HAVE THE TURDFEST NOW ! WHY WAIT FOR TAMPA !!!!!!!

FlaMurph on April 3, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Billie is too dense to recognize sarcasm. But he’s a Mittbot so I already knew that. Billie, you’re an imbecile. You don’t need to keep proving it. We all get it.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:42 PM

So, you get caught being hateful and now you want to turn it into sarcasm.

LOL!!!

You are an Obama supporter/voter and an imbecile.

We get it.

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Billie is too dense to recognize sarcasm. But he’s a Mittbot so I already knew that. Billie, you’re an imbecile. You don’t need to keep proving it. We all get it.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Coming from the biggest baloon headed moron with the smallest IQ on HA, I’d say Bill should take that as a hearty complement.

Go back to the Dailykos you plant.

Swerve22 on April 3, 2012 at 5:50 PM

angryed,

Who would you rather have who chose to run? Just wondering.

I’m sure you and I, along with everyone else here, can name people we wish had run. But they didn’t. We can hope that there’s a brokered convention, which is what I’m doing, but it’s not likely (it’s never likely.) I guess I don’t get why people here would rather Obama be president than Mitt, which is what not voting will do. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Obamacare exists because of that mindset happening in 2006.

cpaulus on April 3, 2012 at 5:47 PM

I am not voting for another Democrat in Republican clothing. I did in 1996 and 2008. No more. If the GOP won’t give me a decent candidate, then I will not give the GOP my vote. Simple as that.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Sheesh. Talk about spin. Hot Air is really in the tank for Obama, aren’t they? I never thought I would see such a thing.

boohoo. Romney is losing and will always lose. 5 dollar gas and he is still down in swing states. I would hate to see what it’s like when it drops in the fall

Flapjackmaka on April 3, 2012 at 5:51 PM

If the Romney base is the GOP intelligentsia we are doomed – it’s doubtful they’re going to have time to get out of stupid even if they ever recognize it. They keep telling themselves that conservatives can be dumped on because the important groups to pander to are the “educated” moderates.

Apparently the Romneybots learned the effect of calling someone a bigot from the libs. Just like people don’t want to be accused of being racist, conservatives don’t want to be told that they will be responsible if BO gets reelected. We MUST follow the ABO rule. /s

katiejane on April 3, 2012 at 5:51 PM

It would have to be Palin/Huckabee 2020
Since it will be Romney/Rubio Re-Election 2016

Natebo on April 3, 2012 at 4:50 PM

1. IMO – Romney isn’t going to run anymore after this loss …
I mean he has been running since 06 ….

2. I am taking Rubio at his word … he isn’t going to be VP

conservative tarheel on April 3, 2012 at 5:51 PM

So, you get caught being hateful and now you want to turn it into sarcasm.

LOL!!!

You are an Obama supporter/voter and an imbecile.

We get it.

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Like I said stupidest poser on HA. But amusing to watch.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

cpaulus on April 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Oh and another thing, Palin was working within the constraints of her state constitution, by her constitutional oath (a novelty idea I know). etch A. sketch was not. Big big big difference.

HerneTheHunter on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Angryed does not hate Mormons. In fact he would support Huntsman over anyone in the current field. The comment of his you quoted was sarcasm.

Kataklysmic on April 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM

No it wasn’t sarcasm. It was his flimsy attempt to hide his real and deep hatred for Mormons.

There is no other reason to make such a stupid and offensive statement.

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

You want a turdfest in Tampa ? You want to leverage a brokered convention threat over Mittens? I say eff u or anyone other liberal propagandists who wants to smear the Fire Obama Now campaign —
LETS HAVE THE TURDFEST NOW ! WHY WAIT FOR TAMPA !!!!!!!

FlaMurph on April 3, 2012 at 5:49 PM

You’ve officially gone insane.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Hey- you can take a HINT !!!!!!!!!
“Your time is up” – as the operator would say- GET OFF the stage….

FlaMurph on April 3, 2012 at 5:49 PM

He ain’t goin’ anywhere. His constantly attacking Romney fulfills his need with his martyr complex.

Its the same reason the Romney fluffin’ nutballs cannot tone down their attacks on other candidates even after they have left the race. Or in Palin’s case, just because she’s Palin.

cozmo on April 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Where the freak did Huckabee come from. Palin at the top of the ticket. No imitations, please! Trade Romneycare, christie, all the bushes and daniels to the democratic party for a bag of balls!

Danielvito on April 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

No it wasn’t sarcasm. It was his flimsy attempt to hide his real and deep hatred for Mormons.

There is no other reason to make such a stupid and offensive statement.

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Bille Bob: Still the stupidest poster on HA. Proving it every day.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5