Romney to NH GOP: Don’t vote in anger in the 2016 primaries and nominate someone who can’t win

posted at 2:21 pm on August 7, 2013 by Allahpundit

Take it from a guy who lost by more than 120 electoral votes to an incumbent struggling with eight percent unemployment: Electability in a nominee is key.

From ABC’s RICK KLEIN: “Mitt Romney did something interesting last night: He lent his voice to a policy debate that’s roiling his party in Congress. His speech last night, at a New Hampshire GOP fundraiser, included a surprise warning against those (hello, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and even Marco Rubio) threatening a government shutdown in an effort to deny funding to Obamacare. Romney won’t win many points with conservatives with an attack on the tea party’s favored legislative strategy, or a sliver of a defense of Obamacare. But he doesn’t have many points he could win with that crowd, post-election, anyway. More intriguing was his warning not to ‘cast an emotional vote, a protest vote, an anger vote’ in the 2016 primaries. He went on to say ‘there will only be one or perhaps two who could actually win the election in November.’ Romney didn’t name names. Of course, he didn’t have to.”

He also warned against trying to defund ObamaCare by shutting down the government, which is interesting just because him saying that obviously helps the tea partiers who support the idea much more than it does those who oppose it. Which Republicans who regard the shutdown as nutty, like Tom Coburn or McCain, think they’ll be more likely to persuade the base of that by pointing to the fact that Mitt Romney thinks it’s nutty too? All this does is give the Pauls and Cruzes new ammo to show grassroots righties that only the failed establishment old guard, personified by the party’s last nominee, think folding on the big defunding fight is wise. It’s strange to me that Romney doesn’t realize that. Maybe he just doesn’t care, but Dubya at least has the good sense to stay away from backing specific policy proposals for fear that the tainted Bush brand will be used to undermine them.

Speaking of not voting in anger for guys who can’t win, news from South Carolina:

Iowa Rep. Steve King, whose hard line immigration rhetoric has angered some of his fellow Republicans and delighted Democrats eager to keep Hispanic voters in their fold, is quietly planning meetings with political activists in the early presidential primary state of South Carolina, CNN has learned…

If King is curious about seeking the Republican nomination in 2016, as his visit to South Carolina suggests, he would certainly face difficult odds, since no sitting member of the House has been elected president since James Garfield in 1880.

I wonder if the GOP establishment sees a King candidacy as a nightmare or an opportunity. Arguably, with the possible exception of Tom Tancredo, there’s no one who can do more damage singlehandedly to Republican bridge-building with Latinos by jumping into the race than him. The first question he gets at every debate will, invariably, have to do with what he said about illegals with “calves the size of cantaloupes” hauling drugs in the desert. He’ll defend his remarks, albeit maybe with some qualified apology, and inevitably some people in the audience will applaud him, inspiring the equally inevitable breathless headlines the next day, “GOP BACKS KING ON CONTROVERSIAL COMMENTS ON IMMIGRANTS.” Why is this an opportunity, then? Because the other candidates, Marco Rubio especially, will be itching to throw rhetorical roundhouses at him to signal their rejection. That’ll earn them some “Sistah Souljah” praise in the media, which will be useful to the nominee in the general. Which raises a bigger question: How much do the Republican candidates really want to talk about immigration in the primaries? There are obvious reasons why Rubio might not, but on the other hand, if the GOP’s going to re-brand for Latino voters in time for the general, they need to define themselves before the Democrats do it for them. Rubio may decide, paradoxically, that he’s better off long-term talking (carefully) about immigration reform in the primaries and trusting GOP voters to see his efforts on it as an electability bonus than keeping quiet and waiting until the general election to build his image as a Republican reformer.


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

Thanks, mittens. We’ll get back to you.

NOMOBO on August 7, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Face it.

No one was going to be allowed to beat Obama. Ever.

At least Romney won some states. A socon would have lost every one.

Moesart on August 7, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Alternate headline – Romney: I Want to be Known As Last Next-In-Line™ Nominee

Steve Eggleston on August 7, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Romney to NH GOP: Don’t vote in anger in the 2016 primaries and nominate someone who can’t win

O.K., so then what was Romney’s excuse for NOT WINNING?

ToddPA on August 7, 2013 at 2:26 PM

don’t nominate someone who can’t win

Said the guy who couldn’t win.

Honestly, Mitt has been such a disappointment in so many ways.

He just can’t help himself.

portlandon on August 7, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Always vote for the ‘electable’ guy… like Romney, McCain, and Dole.

Sure winners all.

faraway on August 7, 2013 at 2:26 PM

No Willard, you ain’t the first person anyone would ask!

“Electability” … can someone kill that notion with a vampire stake or fire? Because if McRage and Willard didn’t prove that meme wrong – then nothing in this universe will.

Look man – you need an inspiring candidate that the base loves who’s conservative … nuff said.

Fatboi Christie ain’t the one.

HondaV65 on August 7, 2013 at 2:27 PM

President Romney & President McCain agree 100%.

portlandon on August 7, 2013 at 2:28 PM

He also warned against trying to defund ObamaCare by shutting down the government, which is interesting just because him saying that obviously helps the tea partiers who support the idea much more than it does those who oppose it.

Alternate subhead – Don’t Kill My Ugly Redheaded Grandchild

Steve Eggleston on August 7, 2013 at 2:28 PM

To me “electability” means fighting for Democrat causes once elected, despite the “R” by your name.

Of what practical use to conservative principles is that?

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on August 7, 2013 at 2:28 PM

At least Romney won some states. A socon would have lost every one.

Moesart on August 7, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Perhaps, but a good fiscal conservative who was willing to ask about Beghazi during a debate on foreign policy probably would have won.

Kafir on August 7, 2013 at 2:28 PM

“Mitt Romney did something interesting last night: He lent his voice to a policy debate

Really? I contend that nothing coming from this man has EVER been interesting.

The indefatigable loserliness of loser RINOs never ends. Go away, loser.

rrpjr on August 7, 2013 at 2:28 PM

I smell a endorsement of Rubio from Romney.

No way he would endorse Christie or Paul.

sentinelrules on August 7, 2013 at 2:28 PM

The first question he gets at every debate will, invariably, have to do with what he said about illegals with “calves the size of cantaloupes” hauling drugs in the desert. He’ll defend his remarks, albeit maybe with some qualified apology, and inevitably some people in the audience will applaud him, inspiring the equally inevitable breathless headlines the next day, “GOP BACKS KING ON CONTROVERSIAL COMMENTS ON IMMIGRANTS.”

Dude, if you’re worried about what the activist media is going to write, then let’s just vote for Hillary.

/hangs head

faraway on August 7, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Face it.

No one was going to be allowed to beat Obama. Ever.

At least Romney won some states. A socon would have lost every one.

Moesart on August 7, 2013 at 2:25 PM

You don’t just have a choice between arch-liberals like Willard and socons you know.

Rand Paul ain’t no socon.

Don’t like him? There’s many others who aren’t “socon”.

But comparing your liberal squishes to “socons” is the only way you can make your boys look good.

It’s just that … choosing between a marxist and a reverend in the GOP is a false choice … there’s a WHOLE LOTTA GREEN IN BETWEEN to look at bro.

HondaV65 on August 7, 2013 at 2:30 PM

At least Romney won some states.

Moesart on August 7, 2013 at 2:25 PM

That, my friends, is the great RINO strategy for victory!

faraway on August 7, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Two Bishops in one day! Man, HA commenters must be working at real jobs today.

NOMOBO on August 7, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Everyone agrees to electing a candidate who can win. Now where is the genius who knows the name of that candidate?

Herb on August 7, 2013 at 2:31 PM

The winning formula is to fight your opponent.

You don’t have to add voters, if you reduce the left’s voters, or even talk them into coming over.

faraway on August 7, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Electability in a nominee is key.

GOP establishment 2008: McCain is the most ELECTABLE! = lose

GOP establishment 2012: Romney is the most ELECTABLE! = lose

GOP establishment 2016: Rubio (or Christie, or Bush) is the most ELECTABLE! = lose

Sorry, but, in 2016, WE AREN’T GOING TO DO IT AGAIN.

Pork-Chop on August 7, 2013 at 2:32 PM

That’s why I wanted Newt, not you.

vityas on August 7, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Immigration & Obamacare will be the end of the Establishment Republicans.

Romney to NH GOP: Don’t vote in anger in the 2016 primaries and nominate someone who can’t win

What an idiot! We already did that in 2012!! Anger? Oh, I can’t wait to vote against any and all R Incumbents in 2014, House & Senate. I’m beyond anger, I’m outraged.

You betcha!

bluefox on August 7, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Personally, I would even vote for a RINO again… if he/she was a fighter.

But, they never are. Or, they fight us instead.

faraway on August 7, 2013 at 2:34 PM

2016 slogan: ITS OUR TURN

faraway on August 7, 2013 at 2:35 PM

“Romney to NH GOP: Don’t vote in anger in the 2016 primaries and nominate someone who can’t win” – Like you Mitt?

Romney had a very winnable race. Unfortunately, he picked next to the worst advisors possible (McCain chose the worst ever – Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace had to be Obama moles who have since been rewarded by the left) and thought he had won the Presidency after the first debate. He stopped fighting (as much as Mitt is capable of fighting) because he wanted to have a good relationship with the Dems after he was sworn in.

bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 2:36 PM

What will it take to make this jackhole go away?!

ElectricPhase on August 7, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Tagg was right about his daddy.

Sherman1864 on August 7, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Romney to NH GOP: Don’t vote in anger in the 2016 primaries and nominate someone who can’t win

Every vote after Jugears is a vote in anger. Anger that the majority of the American public voted for a spineless, constantly-campaigning, no-load, sunken chest, pandering, narcissistic, wealth distributing, job hating, big government douche!

I think he should have told the GOP not to drive angry, it would have gone over better.

Patriot Vet on August 7, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Remember when Romney was ‘electable’?

Resist We Much on August 7, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Can you imagine being Mitt Romney – and lecturing about not winning.

Dude must be dragging in the weeds

jake-the-goose on August 7, 2013 at 2:37 PM

I have enjoyed Romney leading the severely conservative cause every day since the election.

Oh, wait. He just wanted to be ‘elected’.

faraway on August 7, 2013 at 2:38 PM

This strikes me as a variation of the Buckley rule – in the primary vote for the most conservative candidate that has a chance of winning.

Electability doesn’t mean “guaranteed to win”.

Heck, if we could find the candidate that was guaranteed to win we could just forgo the elections and swear them in.

It’s just the positive way of saying “Don’t vote for someone that has no chance of winning”. It’s not a statement worth arguing against because it’s a rather mundane statement. The only part of the concept that’s difficult is determining who has a chance of winning. If he had said, “Don’t nominate someone that isn’t a wealthy New England moderate” I’d understand the disagreement.

As for Romney losing, yes, he lost by 120 electoral votes. He was also running against an incumbent whose personal numbers had remained high and who received no challenges from his party. In recent history, each time an incumbent lost it was after a strong challenge from their own side (Kennedy primaried Carter, Perot ran as Independent and took votes from Bush).

If there’s someone that could have done better, let’s call that out and discuss why they would have prevailed as that would be a useful conversation to have. Just pointing out that the guy lost doesn’t seem (in and of itself) to be a reason for him to not be heard from again.

JadeNYU on August 7, 2013 at 2:38 PM

So what Romney is saying to Republicans is:

Pretend you’re in a Pillow fight, even as you’re getting kicked
in the B*lls….

I love this strategy!

guaranteed overwhelming success or your Money back!! Act now!

The number to call is 1-800-Wuss-Bag

ToddPA on August 7, 2013 at 2:38 PM

ROFLMAO. This from the guy who wanted the nomination knowing he couldn’t win.

People voted “for the only candidate that could win in 2012″ and Obama crushed him like a stale grape.

get off te stage Mitt you are a washed up has been who couldn’t beat the worse POTUS in our history and no Mitt Obama isn’t a nice guy. Surprised you didn’t figure that out when he accused you of murder.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 2:39 PM

I have an idea. Let’s put together a Republican presidential election committee consisting of Dole, McCain, and Romney and let them pick our next nominee. WINNING!

NotCoach on August 7, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Personally, I would even vote for a RINO again… if he/she was a fighter.

But, they never are. Or, they fight us instead.

faraway on August 7, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Good point. Romney’s PACs relentlessly carpet-bombed Santorum for two weeks before the GOP primary. In the general election: crickets.

GOP “strategists” like Mike Murphy, Kevin Madden, Stu Stevens and Alex Castellanos love bashing conservatives but they don’t want to offend their Democratic buddies (just like McCain and Graham).

bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 2:39 PM

JadeNYU on August 7, 2013 at 2:38 PM

screw the buckley rule. It got us RINO after RINO. How about we just vote for conservatives period.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Face it.

No one was going to be allowed to beat Obama. Ever.

At least Romney won some states. A socon would have lost every one.

Moesart on August 7, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Competing for the ‘Dumbest Post Evah!’ award?

NotCoach on August 7, 2013 at 2:41 PM

The entire dysfunctional Republican Party had better get their collectives heads out of their backsides and start acting like a cohesive political force lest the fall by the wayside.

rplat on August 7, 2013 at 2:41 PM

guaranteed overwhelming success or your Money back!! Act now!

The number to call is 1-800-Wuss-Bag

ToddPA on August 7, 2013 at 2:38 PM

I got a chuckle out of that one, thanks

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 2:41 PM

If you listen to that interview with his kid, Romney didn’t even want to run let alone win, but was talked into it by the RNC while he was Governor of Mass. He didn’t even want to be Governor really, he just went through the motions and his polls during his tenure show that. He was a horrible Governor and was still smarting from his loss to Ted Kennedy in the Senate race. He felt he had something to prove I think.

Let’s face it, he jumped ship on Mass as soon as he could and pretty much quit halfway through his tenure as Governor to supposedly focus on a run for President.

Johnnyreb on August 7, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Sorry, Mittens and GOP establishment morons, but your “electability” claims ring a little hollow after two straight shellackings by the candidates we were repeatedly told were the most electable and would attract moderates and disaffected Dems. McCain’s loss I can excuse since I don’t think any Republican stood much of a chance in that election.

But Romney blew an easily winnable race by pandering to the middle and taking the base for granted while pulling numerous punches against Obama. Memo to the Republican Party. You want to win national elections? Stop trying to play nice with the Dems and ignoring the conservative voters. Until you consistently do both, you’ll continue to lose even the most winnable of Presidential and Senate races.

Doughboy on August 7, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Moesart on August 7, 2013 at 2:25 PM

I fear you are as dumb as I perceive you to be … possibly even dumber.

I hope you had a good view of President Romney’s inauguration.

bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Romney to NH GOP: Don’t vote in anger in the 2016 primaries and nominate someone who can’t win

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Romney’s remarks can be summarized thusly: “We have failed. Let us continue!”

Stoic Patriot on August 7, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Forget Mitt. Go ahead, nominate a socon and let’s see what happens. They can’t even win the GOP nomination, let alone independents. Prove me wrong.

rhombus on August 7, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Face it.

No one was going to be allowed to beat Obama. Ever.

At least Romney won some states. A socon would have lost every one.

Moesart on August 7, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Wow no wonder you loved Mitt, you knew he would be a class A loser.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Johnnyreb on August 7, 2013 at 2:41 PM

For a guy whose son claims he didn’t want to run, Mitt sure spent a lot of his personal fortune from 2006 through 2012. $60+ million could have fed a lot of hungry people.

bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Take it from a guy who lost by more than 120 electoral votes to an incumbent struggling with eight percent unemployment: Electability in a nominee is key.

Goebbels can’t take it any more, from the left, to the right.

Schadenfreude on August 7, 2013 at 2:45 PM

It’s good of him to speak up. Maybe he could make us a list, so we get allow his advice early enough in the game to avoid each point one by one,

MTF on August 7, 2013 at 2:46 PM

What’s electability have to do with winning elections? That’s why you engage in fraud as was clearly evident in November. Throw in the fact that OFA was reaping benefits from the NSA spying while political opposition was surpressed by the IRS.

The winning GOP strategy in 2016 is to be as corrupt in the voting as the Dems were in 2012. Vote multiple times. Sign up people that are ineligible to vote. Intimidate anybody who would likely vote Demonrat to include standing outside polling places with baseball bats. There is nothing unprecedented by any of this thanks to the new normal under the rat-eared coward and his party.

Happy Nomad on August 7, 2013 at 2:46 PM

“The Rs are always the dumb party. They never miss an opportunity to miss” — para…Steve Forbes, last Sunday

Schadenfreude on August 7, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Ok we know moderate republicans can’t win we have dole, McCain, romeny and Bush the first to so for that. We also know that moderates acting like conservatives have a very hard time winning like Bush in 2000 and need the country to be at war like 2004 to win a majority of votes. Therefore if we know it, they know it so one has to ask themselves why they continue to push this unwinnable thought process on the base of the GOP, at that point the only logical conclusion is they don’t want to win with a conservative and would rather be the dems uncle toms instead of conservative’s uncle tom.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 2:47 PM

2012 was the last time you dumb RINOs laughed at us.

Schadenfreude on August 7, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Can’t wait for the terries to show up.

Schadenfreude on August 7, 2013 at 2:48 PM

That’s why I wanted Newt, not you.

vityas on August 7, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Had Newt been elected, amnesty would be a done deal by now.

bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Mitts advice on debating. Give up on the third debate, agree with 0 on virtually everything, cause you know no one watches that third debate. Nice job Mitt!/

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Jay Cost, IIRC, had a great post mortem about the 2012 election. The bottom line is that what matters most in terms of electability in modern elections is much less about policy and much more about charisma and appeal. It’s a terribly sad commentary on what our nation has become, but I think that it is very hard to deny. He does make a strong point regarding policy however, basically stating that crazy can never win on a national scale.

He reminds those who think that some other candidate could have done better need to square some very simple logic. That being that a candidate who was too extreme to win the GOP nomination would have NO chance of winning independent voters. Romney did not lose because the base did not vote for him. He lost because he could not obtain the votes of the more independent segments of the GOP mainly due to a lack of charisma and style.

MJBrutus on August 7, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Winning is very, very easy. All you need is a white guy from the South with a middle class background who’s smart, politically savvy, and can talk. This candidate will have no links to the hated establishment or Bush Family & Associates. He will not have gone to school at the Kremlin on the Charles; have ties to the financial community; and would have not spent his entire adult life in government. This person should have gravitas and some charisma.

This candidate, like Reagan, plays to cause fundamental change in the country while working hard to send the old guard packing. He will need to pick up Reagan Democrats (who didn’t like Romney or Obama) and those who are growing more suspicious of the federal government. This candidate will have to, like Reagan, Clinton, and Obama, build a new winning coalition.

So far the only one running who could pull the above off is Rand Paul.

Punchenko on August 7, 2013 at 2:49 PM

No, Willard, you ain’t the first person anyone would ask.

Look man – you need an inspiring candidate that the base loves…

HondaV65 on August 7, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Indeed, more like Obama, that you voted for loool :)…so, no, Honda65-going-13, you ain’t the first person anyone would ask either :)

jimver on August 7, 2013 at 2:49 PM

At least Romney won some states. A socon would have lost every one.

Moesart on August 7, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Your clairvoyance on all things political strikes be as at best wanting.

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 2:49 PM

A socon would have lost every one.

Moesart on August 7, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Sure thing.

I’ve got a thought. Why don’t we try one out in 2016, for once, and you can suck it up, for once, and go out there and make the calls for him or her like I’ve done for every insipid RINO for the last 20 years. How’s that work?

rrpjr on August 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM

be=me

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Oh, goody. They could nominate someone like Romney, who could not win against the man who will always remembered as the worst President ever.

Please, do us a favor, do not nominate anyone like Romney. He wasn’t willing to fight for the job. Let’s nominate a fighter, someone who is willing to hit the Dem nominee, and keep hitting her until the election is over.

The last thing I want is for the nominee to be a Dem-lite. If I wanted a Dem in the WH [I do not], I’d vote for a real Dem.

Mdirmeie on August 7, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Maybe Mitt should buy the Detroit Lions – they don’t play to win either.

bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Embrace the anger. Stoke it, use it, spread it.

They want you to ignore it and suppress it because it terrifies them.

rrpjr on August 7, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Romney was a far better candidate than McCain.

Remember: got Obama 3.5 million fewer votes in 2012 than 2008.
The GOP’s problem in 2012 was too many Conservatives “protested,” and didn’t show up to vote for Romney… so they stuck us all with four more years of Obama.

http://piqscore.com/2012/11/piqscore-bats-a-sizzling-918-in-its-first-presidential-election/

VastRightWingConspirator on August 7, 2013 at 2:52 PM

For a guy whose son claims he didn’t want to run, Mitt sure spent a lot of his personal fortune from 2006 through 2012. $60+ million could have fed a lot of hungry people.

bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 2:44 PM

I refer you to Linda McMahon in Connecticut. She spent over $100 million running for Senate twice knowing she had zero chance of winning. That would have fed a whole lot of people too. Let’s face it, when you have $300-600 million in the bank, a hundred or so million is nothing to these people.

Johnnyreb on August 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM

I’ll stick with Cruz at this point. In a perfect scenario, perhaps DeMint Cruz.

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Remember this following Mitt’s advice in MAss in 2010. Mitt and his team made sure the tea party stayed out of Mass in 2010. guess what? the gop didn’t pick up one seat in Mass during the biggest republican wave in generations. So Mitt was batting 0% so know he wants to take what he learned in the debacle of 2010 in Mass and give it to the rest of the country. The only logical conclusion is Mitt is a liberal plant who wants liberals to win.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM

The GOP’s problem in 2012 was too many Conservatives “protested,” and didn’t show up to vote for Romney… so they stuck us all with four more years of Obama.

VastRightWingConspirator on August 7, 2013 at 2:52 PM

I truly don’t think that was the case at all. The no shows were much more those closer to the middle who just weren’t impressed enough with Romney to vote. The Conservatives were engaged and did show up. Obama made sure of that.

MJBrutus on August 7, 2013 at 2:54 PM

D*mmitt,there goes my Voting Strategy,er wait……………….
(sarc)

canopfor on August 7, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Romney did not lose because the base did not vote for him. He lost because he could not obtain the votes of the more independent segments of the GOP mainly due to a lack of charisma and style.

MJBrutus on August 7, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Romney won the independent vote. He lost because he refused to attack Obama and didn’t give enough independents of conservatives a reason to vote for him or against Obama.

Romney had the second worst campaign staff ever. Only McCain’s was worse with Obama moles like Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace.

bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Mittness strikes again. We don’t need a frelling savvy manager, we ned a bold leader with a conservative vision – 80% will do! Unfortunately, we haven’t seen one rise to the nomnation in decades.

And yes, I will vote againt everything in anger against GOPe.

Paging Palin, please smack this clueless oaf..

AH_C on August 7, 2013 at 2:56 PM

I truly don’t think that was the case at all. The no shows were much more those closer to the middle who just weren’t impressed enough with Romney to vote. The Conservatives were engaged and did show up. Obama made sure of that.

MJBrutus on August 7, 2013 at 2:54 PM

It was Reagan democrats that sat home. Mostly white middle to lower middle class votes who saw knowing in Mitt’s campaign that caused them to go vote. they hate Obama and wanted him gone but they weren’t going to elect someone that reminded them of their boss at work who feels labor is the problem in the country.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 2:56 PM

I refer you to Linda McMahon in Connecticut. She spent over $100 million running for Senate twice knowing she had zero chance of winning. That would have fed a whole lot of people too. Let’s face it, when you have $300-600 million in the bank, a hundred or so million is nothing to these people.

Johnnyreb on August 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Don’t forget Meg Whitman in California.

bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 2:57 PM

I voted for Romney because I wholeheartedly believe Barack Obama is a disaster, and because I thought Romney would be at least an okay president. I don’t agree with a lot of what he says, but this time I think his advice is sound.

Don’t vote in anger in the 2016 primaries and nominate someone who can’t win.

If the RNC had heeded that advice, he probably wouldn’t have been nominated.

RebeccaH on August 7, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Romney won the independent vote. He lost because he refused to attack Obama and didn’t give enough independents of conservatives a reason to vote for him or against Obama.

bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Which is what I said, if I parsed that correctly. I think we basically agree that the no shows were those who were center right not those on the hard right.

MJBrutus on August 7, 2013 at 2:58 PM

“I’m probably not the first person you’d ask for advice.”

I’ll say this for Romney: he always had a gift for understatment

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 7, 2013 at 2:58 PM

At least Romney won some states. A socon would have lost every one.

Moesart on August 7, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Wait, what? So, you think states like Alabama would have gone Obama?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Stop it, yer killin’ me!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

I think ALL of my ribs are broken!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Resist We Much on August 7, 2013 at 2:58 PM

For those of you bashing SoCons, I’d suggest we should try getting behind one for a change and see just how bad it is. Because Reagan won elections by getting security hawks, SoCons, and Libertarian-types all behind him.

You stupid stupid people want to discount a huge part of the GOP base for no other reason than they believe in God, don’t like abortion, or something. Truly the most idiotic and myopic stupidity that there is from people who claim they don’t like Obama.

Happy Nomad on August 7, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Sorry, but, in 2016, WE AREN’T GOING TO DO IT AGAIN.

Pork-Chop on August 7, 2013 at 2:32 PM

I agree. The RINOs lose every time. NO MORE.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM

The Tea party put Scott Brown in the senate and they did not come out for him when he flipped them the finger. Of course like all the demented RINOs he thinks they should love him anyway. He just doesn’t get it at all and that why princess spreading bull is now senator.

Solid conservative values win every time. The RINOS hate and fear that. Dems hate and fear that.

dogsoldier on August 7, 2013 at 2:59 PM

The truth is nobody knows who can win or who will win because nobody can see into the future.

aengus on August 7, 2013 at 2:59 PM

I refer you to Linda McMahon in Connecticut. She spent over $100 million running for Senate twice knowing she had zero chance of winning. That would have fed a whole lot of people too. Let’s face it, when you have $300-600 million in the bank, a hundred or so million is nothing to these people.

Johnnyreb on August 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Don’t forget Meg Whitman in California.

bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Meg Whitman and Linda were GOPe picks They would be the people Mitt is telling us to nominate. They lost badly. Yet Mitt andRove continue to push these losers on us. In 2010 there were 7 GOPe candidates that lost winnable elections. There were 2 Tea party candidates that lost. Funny you don’t here about the 7 gope candidates that cost us the senate We didn’t to win 4 seats. the Tea party lost two one in DE and one in NV, the gope lost 7. Tell me again who cost the GOP the senate in 2010?

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 3:00 PM

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Pretty much what I said. So, running a candidate who would have been so far right that he couldn’t even get half of the GOP to vote for him for the nomination is hardly the answer to getting those centrists on board in a general election.

MJBrutus on August 7, 2013 at 3:00 PM

At least Romney won some states. A socon would have lost every one.

Moesart on August 7, 2013 at 2:25 PM

All evidence to the contrary, of course. An awful lot of people stayed home that an actual conservative would’ve brought to the polls.

But folks like you will help the GOP bring another feckless milquetoast of a liberal-lite candidate to the polls in 2016; between that worthless candidate and all of the GOP backstabbing of their base between here and there, your ‘electable’ candidate will fare worse than Romney did.

Good luck with that.

Midas on August 7, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Its come to this ? c’mon !
.
AP now reaching down to build off the paraphrasing of a leftist like Rich Klein- who’s main job is to please his ABC comrades (ABC AP ?)- with this divisive drivel ? Who’s the next go to, Maureen Dowd ???
.
Rich Klein’s purpose, as is any of the commie media right now, is to divide and discredit ANY NON-DEMOCRAT who dares to be heard, leading up to 2014.
.
WHY ON EARTH are you people taking this bait, constantly and fighting for your spot in this circular firing squad? AGAIN ?
.
BE SMART- The Media IS THE ENEMY. The DEMOCRATS are THE ENEMY. Do not let them tell you otherwise.

Think Breitbart.

FlaMurph on August 7, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Exclusive–Tea Partiers Blast Romney’s Anti-Obamacare Defunding Remarks http://t.co/7YKkm0plfK via @BreitbartNews

idesign on August 7, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Can anyone even remember any central theme(s) from Romney’s campaign? In all honesty, there’s next to nothing I remember (Candy CrOWley and Paul Ryan losing a debate to a moron).

And, Paul Ryan was absolutely useless.

bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Jay Cost, IIRC, had a great post mortem about the 2012 election. The bottom line is that what matters most in terms of electability in modern elections is much less about policy and much more about charisma and appeal. It’s a terribly sad commentary on what our nation has become, but I think that it is very hard to deny. He does make a strong point regarding policy however, basically stating that crazy can never win on a national scale.

He reminds those who think that some other candidate could have done better need to square some very simple logic. That being that a candidate who was too extreme to win the GOP nomination would have NO chance of winning independent voters. Romney did not lose because the base did not vote for him. He lost because he could not obtain the votes of the more independent segments of the GOP mainly due to a lack of charisma and style.

MJBrutus on August 7, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Charisma is important for low information morons who wouldn’t know substance if it hit them upside the head. But at the same time, we need candidates who can articulate conservative principles and actually believe in it. Why do you think the base was desperately trying to find anyone other than Romney to hand the nomination to?

It’s a lesson the GOP establishment either refuses to learn or does understand but doesn’t want to accept since odds are most of them lean more progressive than conservative on most issues. But if they attempt the “most electable” nonsense in 2016 and saddle us with CRISTie or Rubio, rest assured they’ll not only lose for the third straight time, but it’ll likely be just as big a shellacking as they got in the last 2 elections.

Doughboy on August 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM

You stupid stupid people want to discount a huge part of the GOP base for no other reason than they believe in God, don’t like abortion, or something. Truly the most idiotic and myopic stupidity that there is from people who claim they don’t like Obama.

Happy Nomad on August 7, 2013 at 2:58 PM

We need closed primaries with a six month residence requirement and strong voter ID laws. That will insure republicans are voting in the primary for republicans and no independents or dems get a say in choosing our candidates.

If we can make that change, we will start to see candidates WE want instead of the losers we have been getting.

dogsoldier on August 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Happy Nomad on August 7, 2013 at 2:58 PM

I don’t want a socon, I want a conservative. If he/she is conservative the social aspect will come along. Conservative on the social issues, the fiscal issues and the military issues. I want a bunch of Reaganites not just a soccons. But I would rather have a soccon then a liberal punk.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 3:03 PM

MJBrutus on August 7, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Agree with your comment about charisma and all…as sad as it may be, it’s been the case with voters everywhere since times immemorial…..yet here’s one candidate that doesn’t fit that bill and slightly contradicts your (and mine too) theory on this, and who may win the 2016 elections, charisma or not…..and that’s Billary…she has 0 charisma, appeal or likeability, yet the Bubba political machine and MSM could easily drag her over the finish line..methinks that .whoever is going to be the GOP nominee in 2016 will need bucketloads of charisma, since none of them will have the political machine and the money behind them, to rival that of the Clintons…

jimver on August 7, 2013 at 3:03 PM

So, you think states like Alabama would have gone Obama?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Resist We Much on August 7, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Why do think Alabama would never have gone Obama?
Are you saying they would have voted against him no mater at all who the alternative was?

verbaluce on August 7, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Can anyone even remember any central theme(s) from Romney’s campaign? In all honesty, there’s next to nothing I remember (Candy CrOWley and Paul Ryan losing a debate to a moron).

And, Paul Ryan was absolutely useless.

bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM

“Obama is a nice guy jus tin over his head”

vote for me and I will replace Obamacare not repeal it.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 3:04 PM

“Electable” candidates in the GOP lose general elections. See Romney, Dole, McCain, Ford. Candidates who run far to the right win: Reagan, W. Bush, and Nixon. W. Bush and Nixon may not have stayed true to how they ran once elected, however Bush ran to the right of McCain and Nixon to the right of the Rockefeller’s of the world.

The only outlier to this theory is Goldwater – but he lost to a Texas Democrat.

eski502 on August 7, 2013 at 3:06 PM

It’s just that … choosing between a marxist and a reverend in the GOP is a false choice … there’s a WHOLE LOTTA GREEN IN BETWEEN to look at bro.

HondaV65 on August 7, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Hey look, it’s the Obama voter!

FOAD.

kim roy on August 7, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Don’t forget Meg Whitman in California.

bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 2:57 PM

I lived in CT when McMahan ran. Both the New London Day and the Hartford Currant newspapers went apoplectic multiple times saying that she was going to “buy” a Senate seat with her vast ill gotten fortune and how dare she use her money to do that, it was illegal, etc.. In the end she lost as pretty much everyone knew she would but she spent over 100 Million of her own dollars knowing full well that she never had a chance to win. To people like that, it is not about the money, it about them.

Ned Lamont tried the same thing against Lieberman. That didn’t work either.

Johnnyreb on August 7, 2013 at 3:06 PM

You stupid stupid people want to discount a huge part of the GOP base for no other reason than they believe in God, don’t like abortion, or something. Truly the most idiotic and myopic stupidity that there is from people who claim they don’t like Obama.

Happy Nomad on August 7, 2013 at 2:58 PM

‘for no other reason’?
I think maybe you’re assigning a bit too much to a bit too many of those who believe in God and don’t like abortion.
This is not a voting bloc. GOP has to keep learning that the hard way over and over again.

verbaluce on August 7, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Resist We Much on August 7, 2013 at 2:58 PM

And the deep belly laughs keep on a coming. ; ) Lol!

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4