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

“Hope and Change” was a SLOGAN.

‘Morning in America” was a SLOGAN.

thatsafactjack on August 7, 2013 at 4:09 PM

neither was a slogan. It was a central theme of the campaign. everything Obama did was based on the concept his campaign was for based on hope and he was going to change what was work with America.

Everything Reagan did in 2004 campaign was to drive home that America had turned a corner and it was morning in America again.

both campaign started with a central theme to wrap around their follow on efforts.

Mitt started and ended with Obama is a nice guy.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 4:17 PM

there has never been an entirely informed electorate
Axe on August 7, 2013 at 4:13 PM

I am not in disagreement with you. No need for the asbestos just yet. I think it is safe to say that we are living during a time of very very low info folks who have the same ability to vote as the high info types. That is as it is.

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 4:20 PM

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 4:17 PM

^ work=wrong
2004=1984.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 4:21 PM

as for who would have done better than Romney (or if anyone would have), it’s counterfactual and a bit hard to quantify that at this point without infusing a huge dose of subjectivism…you said that in your opinion a few would have performed better than R on election day, possibly, or even likely, but better enough to win?? Again, I guess we’ll never know…and I agree that Romney almost sytemztically shied away from attacking Obama on his ill-coonceived policies, and I have no idea why…I guess because he doesn’t bave a good enough political instinct to win, in general, and he relied too much (or actually entirely) on his campaign team to make it hoppen…at times it appeared as his input to his campaign was 0 or that he didn’t even want to fight & win this…

jimver on August 7, 2013 at 4:10 PM

I wouldn’t go so far as to say another candidate would have won. That is too speculative by far. But, I don’t think it is outrageous to say another candidate would have performed better – helping down ticket races. First – Romney’s team didn’t even bother with a get-out-the-vote effort. Any other candidate putting some real effort into get-out-the-vote alone would likely have increased performance.

Also, simply attacking Obama more and fighting to win would have excited the base and those inclined to vote against Obama – again making it likely that another candidate would have performed better.

Those other candidates were all flawed in one way or another, but those two simple things – a real get-out-the-vote effort and actually going after Obama and fighting to win, would have ended with a better result (not necessarily winning, just a better result) than Romney had. Romney ended up basically with all the people who were going to go and vote against Obama no matter what. His votes were basically the floor for what a GOP candidate could have received.

I said all along (I’ll go and dig out the comments on old posts for anyone who doesn’t believe) that the problem with Romney was that he thought all he had to do was avoid mistakes and Obama would lose. I argued – I believe correctly – that you cannot run a campaign and just hope the other guy loses, it will never work.

Putting it into sports analogy – Romney acted like he was sitting on a big lead and so played a “prevent defense” (preventing himself from making a huge mistake). But he was never sitting on a lead. He did not have that luxury. He simply believed that if the economy was bad enough, he had to do nothing and he would be president.

Monkeytoe on August 7, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Here is my “Has Nothing To Do With The Thread” observation of the day. Ants are very industrious.

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 4:23 PM

When people talk about a “base election” they aren’t really talking about the actively engaged, passionate base. they are talking about the marginal voters who are registered in the party but who vote irregularly. Who need 10 phone calls and even a van stopping by their house to get them off their arse and to the polls

Obama won on the strength of his get-out-the-vote effort, not because passionate conservatives stayed home.

Monkeytoe on August 7, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Meh, IRS mignt have helped a little with curbing the enthusiasm of our actively engaged, passionate base:) …as for O’s GOVT effort, it is indeed remarkable how whole constituencies voted at 100% or more for him…unmatched performance imdeed :)…

jimver on August 7, 2013 at 4:24 PM

fool me once, shame on – shame on you. Fool me – you can’t get fooled again

That sage advice came from one of the two most conservative candidates to run since 1976. The two conservatives won twice each. The other 5 moderate candidates went 1-6. And the one time they won they still had a touch of “evil-angry-conservative taint” still on them. In other words 5-5 running as conservatives and 0-5 running as moderates.

As for the “angry” thing, both Cruz and Palin are not angry types. They are more like Reagan. Happy warriors.

KMav on August 7, 2013 at 4:25 PM

I think it is safe to say that we are living during a time of very very low info folks who have the same ability to vote as the high info types. That is as it is.

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 4:20 PM

It’s always been the case to some degree or another. Not everyone keeps up on the comings and goings of government. A campaign is a sales job. Just like a car salesman has to sell cars to people who are up to date on prices, models, features they also have to sale cars to people that just come off the street because they liked how the car looked in the lot.

A good politician has to convince both types of people.

You think all the people who voted for Jefferson knew the details of the Louisiana purchase?

that’s why I hate the term low information voter. they aren’t low information they are if anything non-involved. They don’t want to get into a white paper, they don’t want to spend hours researching a candidate. they just want to pick a “good person” and vote.

this is another problem with moderate campaigns they have no way to reach those types of people. “vote for me because I’m better than the other guy” doesn’t sale. You ever hear GM say “buy a Chevy because its better than a ford”.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 4:28 PM

I am not in disagreement with you. No need for the asbestos just yet. I think it is safe to say that we are living during a time of very very low info folks who have the same ability to vote as the high info types. That is as it is.

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 4:20 PM

I didn’t mean you. I meant that I didn’t want to invite the Anarchists to start in on my “totalitarianism.” “That is as it is.” — Only difference between that and my tome is an addendum: “And it will continue to be this way. It’s normal, unfortunately. Let’s adapt.”

Axe on August 7, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Does Romney mean voting in anger like South Carolina did in the primary where he got walloped by Gingrich simply because Gingrich showed some balls and fired back at Jjjjuuuuan Williams’ stupid, race-baiting question?

Imagine the victories if other GOP’ers did that with the mediademocrat machine.

SouthernGent on August 7, 2013 at 4:31 PM

He simply believed that if the economy was bad enough, he had to do nothing and he would be president.

Monkeytoe on August 7, 2013 at 4:21 PM

If that was so why did he keep saying the economy was improving?

I agree Mitt played not to lose but I don’t think he hung his hopes on the economy. He really believed people would see he would do a better job than Obama. Mitt ran the campaign as if he was in a job interview.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Putting it into sports analogy – Romney acted like he was sitting on a big lead and so played a “prevent defense” (preventing himself from making a huge mistake). But he was never sitting on a lead. He did not have that luxury. He simply believed that if the economy was bad enough, he had to do nothing and he would be president.

Monkeytoe on August 7, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Again, I can’t disagree with your analysis…..strangely enough, I don’t think it was laziness or over-confidence on his part, he struck me as a conscientioous, hard working type of ‘student’ . It was more as if he didn’t undertsand politics and the political game at all…in politics doing your homework is not always enough, good instinct and gumption and engagement (and some chutzpah too, not the Weiner or Spitzer kind though :) matter …he showed none of those attributes…

jimver on August 7, 2013 at 4:34 PM

I do tend to agree with Romney that de-funding Obamacare isn’t going to work. Obama will go all stompy foot and blame the R’s for shutting down the government… and we all know how well that worked for Clinton.

It’s doubtful we have the votes in the Senate to defund Obamacare with McCain and the other group of Undocumented Dems voting in lock step with Dirty Harry.

So the best thing we can do is just get the spending reductions we want, in trade for funding the Obamacare which should hopefully be the millstone around the neck of the Dem part in 2016.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 7, 2013 at 4:36 PM

If that was so why did he keep saying the economy was improving?

Because he is not a very smart politician.

I agree Mitt played not to lose but I don’t think he hung his hopes on the economy. He really believed people would see he would do a better job than Obama. Mitt ran the campaign as if he was in a job interview.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 4:32 PM

He hung his hopes on the economy. The historical stats were that an incumbent doesn’t get re-elected if unemployment is above (i forget the exact number) 7%. He thought that was true and he would therefore win. He talked up the economy because he did not want to seem to be pinning his own ambition on other people’s misfortune or to be seen as the bad guy.

If he wasn’t hanging his hopes on the economy – then my opinion of Romney becomes even worse. At least with the economy, he had some historical data to suggest he could win if he just did nothing wrong. If he did not believe that, then he was just a completely incompetent candidate from top to bottom with no possible strategy. Hanging his hopes on the economy is the only thing that makes any sense. Otherwise, what was his strategy? Just sit around and hope people vote for you?

Monkeytoe on August 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Mitt ran the campaign as if he was in a job interview.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 4:32 PM

And in a situation where knowledgeable people were selecting a president based on track record and facts, Mitt would have won.

Unfortunately, as P.T. Barnum said, a sucker is born every minute, and Obama bought the suckers, hook, line, and sinker with false promises, hogwash, and Obama-phones.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 7, 2013 at 4:39 PM

SouthernGent on August 7, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Exactly.

avgjo on August 7, 2013 at 4:55 PM

“electable”

There is great irony in the way the GOP establishment uses this word, given the last two “electable” candidates they force-fed us.

mintycrys on August 7, 2013 at 4:56 PM

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…

So Romney is giving a speech, where is what he said that ABC news didn’t like? How did this ABC news reporter get into a fundraiser? This comment attributed to Romney is the same cliche wisdom that has been bouncing around for the last few weeks, can they defund ObamaCare without shutting the government down or is Obama waiting to stiff the government and blame it on the republicans. So, how do you do this if Obama can call a sequester and blame the republicans, and not get the blame, and if he doesn’t push Harry Reid to take up funding which defunds Obama care, he is going to have the media blame the republicans.

Are we working on this? How is it done? Who will help the republicans lay the blame at the door that it belongs at if the House passes a budget for 2014 and Obama won’t sign it? Are we going to pay money for advertising to get this message to the American People?

Romney is just parroting what we heard last week, if he said these things at all. I want to hear the rest of the speech, obviously he did not go on about the 47%, but I wonder, what else did he say? That would be journalism; this is carefully targeted to point at Ted Cruz, and I bet Romney never said it.

Fleuries on August 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM

He went on to say ‘there will only be one or perhaps two who could actually win the election in November.’

…and none of them will be RINOs.

dominigan on August 7, 2013 at 5:01 PM

I think Mitt was saying, “Don’t vote for any establishment nominee, as he or she has no chance to win, as evidenced by me, McCain and Dole and the phony conservative, W!”

tomshup on August 7, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Don’t worry Mitt I’m going to not vote in anger. I also think it’s racist that members of the GOP are still giving speeches in English.

DFCtomm on August 7, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Redo above 5:01….at the end…..oops, W fooled us pretty good the first time and won anyway the second time.”

tomshup on August 7, 2013 at 5:03 PM

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 7, 2013 at 4:39 PM

You’re wanted on the Hasan thread.

ToddPA on August 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Schadenfreude on August 7, 2013 at 4:04 PM

I greatly admire and like the man, in spite of his flaws.
You unaware he had any.
And that is kinda funny.

verbaluce on August 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM

To quote Joe Wilson:

You lie!

kingsjester on August 7, 2013 at 4:10 PM

To quote Ronald Reagan:
Oh, Shut-up.

verbaluce on August 7, 2013 at 5:06 PM

verbaluce on August 7, 2013 at 5:06 PM

To further quote Ronald Reagan,

The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

kingsjester on August 7, 2013 at 5:09 PM

I greatly admire and like the man, in spite of his flaws.
You unaware he had any.
And that is kinda funny.

verbaluce on August 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Heh, you be delusional, again, but I like you anyway, because of it, not against it :)

Only gods are flawless – see obama.

Schadenfreude on August 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM

I haven’t read upthread, so if this has already been mentioned, apologies.

But Dan Balz, Washington Post correspondent, hawking his new book on the presidential election, Collision 2012, notes that in the course of writing the book, one of his “surprising” discoveries was “the degree of ambivalence of Mitt Romney” about running for president—an attitude he says Romney had even after forming an exploratory committee. It showed.

He talks about this at 2:02-2:50 on the clip.

de rigueur on August 7, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Ok, Romney, time for Obama to remind you who won. Also, you are really making me angry.

mobydutch on August 7, 2013 at 5:20 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

Weapons-grade stupidity. McCain and Romney pretty much defined the maximum of how many states a Republican can lose. Although McCain would have done even worse than he did if he hadn’t picked Palin for a running mate.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 7, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Sorry, Romney. You may have been a well-meaning guy, but at this point, you can just bite me.

totherightofthem on August 7, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Ted Cruz. And I ain’t angry.

John the Libertarian on August 7, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Oh, and hey, Romney? Weren’t you supposed to be the electable one of all the candidates? How’s that working out for us? Retire and don’t talk anymore, for pity’s sake.

totherightofthem on August 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Ted Cruz. And I ain’t angry.

John the Libertarian on August 7, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Same here, only I am angry.

totherightofthem on August 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Good Lord,Mitt-aren’t you the pot calling the kettle black.You ran against a failed President with the economy in the tank and you couldn’t win.We have had enough of you flip-flopping unprincipled, deceitful RINOs.

redware on August 7, 2013 at 5:38 PM

The hypothetical alternative to Romney is a social conservative.

Pay attention.

sentinelrules on August 7, 2013 at 3:10 PM

FIFY

Midas on August 7, 2013 at 5:45 PM

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

Moesart on August 7, 2013 at 2:25 PM

What a steaming pile of idiotic bullshit. The last true-blue socon who ran won. Twice.

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 5:48 PM

He went on to say ‘there will only be one or perhaps two who could actually win the election in November.’

And Mitt himself was that guy in 2012. Such brilliance!

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Gee, another washed-up politician worried how the media will portray the Republican party. Three words for ya: frak the media. The ‘pubs cannot win over the media, not in its current configuration, so don’t. Had Romney showed some brass-ones and gone after Obama, slamming him every chance he got, he rouses the base and makes it a real fight, if not an outright win. Too many stayed home for they had nothing to vote for, other than the perceived same-o same-o. Reagan won the ‘pub nomination in ’80, nearly winning in ’76 against the incumbent, because he gave a stark difference to the idiots running the government at the time. Romney and other squishes, in a vain attempt to sound “moderate,” just end up validating the very programs destroying this nation. No more candidates “electable” by the establishment’s definition. No more RINO’s, no excuses, no bs. This isn’t a purity issue, this is a survivability issue. We cannot survive as a nation with dumbocrats, and dumbocrat-lite. One more squish and we might as well take a match to the Constitution, for that is all it will be worth.

TQM38a on August 7, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Does Romney mean voting in anger like South Carolina did in the primary where he got walloped by Gingrich simply because Gingrich showed some balls and fired back at Jjjjuuuuan Williams’ stupid, race-baiting question?

Imagine the victories if other GOP’ers did that with the mediademocrat machine.

SouthernGent on August 7, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Newt smacking the media around was great television.

The problem with most of the GOP is that they feel inferior to Democrats who occupy the commanding heights of the Prestige Media. And the Prestige Media controls The Narrative that decides who will be heroes and who will be villains. These Republicans, like McCain, rather be a hero to the lefty scribes and poets and not a villain like Newt. It’s understandable, I suppose, and all the more reason why the right needs to control The Narrative by taking control of the Prestige Media (which is doable, but must be done quietly.)

Punchenko on August 7, 2013 at 5:59 PM

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.

Trashing the interests of the white conservative base to get praise from the liberal mass media, with the idea that this will help you in the general, when you won’t be facing Republicans but a Democrat – how often has that trick worked?

David Blue on August 7, 2013 at 6:02 PM

And in a situation where knowledgeable people were selecting a president based on track record and facts, Mitt would have won.

Unfortunately, as P.T. Barnum said, a sucker is born every minute, and Obama bought the suckers, hook, line, and sinker with false promises, hogwash, and Obama-phones.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 7, 2013 at 4:39 PM
——

My two cents.

I think the GOP will keep losing when people think like this. I believe that in order to effectively argue against something you should be equally effective in arguing for it. Meaning, to have a great arguement you should be so educated on both sides of the matter that it’s truly your knowledge and grasp of the situation that will sway people. Simply writing off millions of people as suckers, fools, poor, dumb, etc in my opinion is a good strategy. If the GOP wants to win elections they have to figure out the REAL reasons why people are going with the compeitition. I have no doubt some people vote based purely off dumb basic reasons, but no one party has a monopoly on those people. For example, I would argue that as many people voted for Obama “only” because he was Black also just as many voted against him “only” for that same reason. For example, people love to state that Obama got something line 90% of the Black vote. But so did Bill Clinton. If its strictly because of race a better question would be why did he get 75% of the Asian vote? Thats the type of question I would be asking if I was in the GOP.

I look at the electorate like this.

60% – People who go to work everyday, try to give their kids better lives, pay their taxes, dont have time to research hours and hours on candidates, use a couple of commercials, debates and gut feelings to choose their horse in the race.

20% Highly policital people who spend times on message boards like this and know policies up and down

10% who vote based off of nothing but emotion, looks, presence, etc

10% who vote strictly party line.

And thats only based off the people who bother to vote. We know that millions of people dont even make it to the polls for what ever reasons.

I think alot of people (myself included) agree with Republican fiscal policies but I think its the social politics that scare people off. I personally dont care about your religion or sexual preference and I dont want to be judged because of my own. But if you can get my taxes lower and not insult my sister and her girlfriend. I would look at voting for you.

I think the two party system sucks because no one person ever fully represents your views so you find yourself having to make concessions and me personally if I have to pay higher taxes in order to make sure that my gay friends have all the same rights I do. Then I guess that’s what I have to do.

Politricks on August 7, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Newt smacking the media around was great television.

Punchenko on August 7, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Newt really rose in the polls by smacking around Obama. In the first several of that seemingly endless series of debates, Gingrich didn’t attack the other candidates on the stage. He then rose in the polls, and Team Romney was so weak that all they could do is slime Gingrich.

Trashing the interests of the white conservative base to get praise from the liberal mass media…

David Blue on August 7, 2013 at 6:02 PM

You don’t have to put it in terms of race/color. Run on principle, not on wooing whatever balkanized voting bloc.

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Too many stayed home for they had nothing to vote for, other than the perceived same-o same-o.

TQM38a on August 7, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Exactly. You won’t get any support from the liberal mass media in the general no matter how much you trash conservatives, as John McCain found, but even if you did, it can’t make up for your own base staying home because you’re giving them nothing to vote for.

David Blue on August 7, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Repubs have lost 5 out of the last 6 in the popular vote for prez. They lost the Senate and there were more votes cast for Dem Congressmen that Repub Congressmen. Repubs are great at Gerrymandering which is why they have the House. I do think the Repubs are crazy enough to let a right-winger sneak through this next election. They still have not learned their lessons. One more Democratic victory for prez, coupled with the thinning of the over 65 + White core Republican demographic, means the Republican party will field a decent candidate in 2020. By then, gay marriage will be in every state and the social issues can be put to bed once and for all. The stock market is back….the housing market is back…and W is painting self-portraits. America is slowly getting better.

ZippyZ on August 7, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Politricks on August 7, 2013 at 6:04 PM

And there you have it folks. A summation of low info voting.

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 6:11 PM

.
And your totally electable candidate was……..?
.
None of the above lost too.

FlaMurph on August 7, 2013 at 3:54 PM

“None of the above” lost to Mr Electabiloity because None Of The Above was like, you know, totally unelectable and toxic and polarizing and all other sorts of badness, unlike Mr ELectability who was really provably demonstrably Unelectable.

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 6:12 PM

It is so difficult having to listen to some of you SoCons and “real conservatives” drone on and on about how if the GOP would just agree in totality with YOU that everything would be fine..

in your simplistic minds only a true isolationist social conservative can ever win an election in the United States.

“isolationist social conservative?”

Sounds like you don’t even know what a social conservative is.

Senator Christine O’Donnell would like to disagree.

No one claims she was a great candidate. But isn’t it interesting that the IRS released false information about a lien on a house she didn’t even have that damaged her candidacy? And isn’t it a coincidence that Karl Rove was attacking her about the same time, AFTER she won the primary?

There seem to be some Republicans who would rather see a conservative fail than see a Republican win.

Senator Todd Akin would like to disagree.

Senator George Allen would like to disagree. (TWICE!!)

As both a former senator and a former governor of Virgnia, Allen might not be the best example of an unelectable social conservative.

Congressman Alan West would like to disagree.

Also won an election to Congress, so hardly the best example of an unelectable social conservative. And the election he lost was so corrupt that, again, it really proves nothing.

Vice President Sarah Palin would like to disagree.

I don’t know why you even bother mentioning Sarah Palin. Everyone knows that the election is won or lost at the top of the ticket, and even the dullest political observer wouldn’t mistake John McCain for a social conservative.

Senator Sharon Angle would like to disagree.

Any of you who think Rick Santorum (who lost his HOME STATE by 18 points) or Newtie Gingrich would have done better than Romney is living in fantasy land.

AirForceCane on August 7, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Rick Santorum probably would have done better. He at least would have critized Obama from the right, and been able to explain HOW Obama was hurting the economy.

Newt Gingrich is impossible to read. He’s often brilliant, but so unpredictable that I can’t say whether he would have swept to victory or gone down. Still, it’s debatable that he would have done worse than Romney.

That brings your list of bad social cons down to Akin, Angle, and O’Donnell. And the RINO candidates lost a lot more than 3 races.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 7, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Any of you who think Rick Santorum (who lost his HOME STATE by 18 points) or Newtie Gingrich would have done better than Romney is living in fantasy land.

AirForceCane on August 7, 2013 at 3:47 PM

NONE of those would’ve done any worse.

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Rick Santorum probably would have done better. He at least would have criticized Obama from the right, and been able to explain HOW Obama was hurting the economy.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 7, 2013 at 6:12 PM

The gay rights jokes right themselves. Instead of a dog on the roof, we would have had anal seepage and even more War on Women/Gays crap.

Santorum had no chance from the beginning.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 7, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Senator Christine O’Donnell would like to disagree.

No one claims she was a great candidate. But isn’t it interesting that the IRS released false information about a lien on a house she didn’t even have that damaged her candidacy? And isn’t it a coincidence that Karl Rove was attacking her about the same time, AFTER she won the primary?

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 7, 2013 at 6:12 PM

And O’Donnell, faults and all, had to run more against her own damn feckless party than she did against the Democrats and their candidate.

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 6:17 PM

NONE of those would’ve done any worse.

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 6:14 PM

They also would not have done any better. None of them ran a campaign that was worth voting for.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 7, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Santorum had no chance from the beginning.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 7, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Which is about the same as Romney. Or next cycle’s model, Rubio.

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 6:19 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

Yep…just as California would vote for the Democrat regardless of who he or she is.

Resist We Much on August 7, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Which is about the same as Romney. Or next cycle’s model, Rubio.

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 6:19 PM

I’m holding out for Ted Cruz.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 7, 2013 at 6:19 PM

They also would not have done any better.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 7, 2013 at 6:18 PM

We don’t know that. What we DO know is that Mittmentum got his ass handed to him by the most beatable incumbent in a century. After we had been told for four years what a lead-pipe cinch a moderate milquetoast would be.

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 6:21 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

Also, Moesart’s point was that, if the GOP had run a socon, ALL 50 states would have voted for Obama.

Alabama would have picked a liberal over a socon? Really?

Do you know how many churches there are in Alabama?

Socon is a feature not a bug.

Resist We Much on August 7, 2013 at 6:21 PM

All of Romney’s fight was against fellow republicans and conservatives in the primary. He had no fight against obama. None at all. Someone a little more conspiratorial minded than me would almost say that he was a stalking horse for Obama.
Monkeytoe on August 7, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Thank you! Romney was not supposed to win imo and the Dems & Establishment Republicans designed it that way. NO Republican Candidate was to win the nomination other than Romney because he was the easiest to beat and that was planned.

Which Republican campaigned for Romney???? Gingrich is the only one I recall. Where was the RNC, McCain, Cornyn, Rubio, etc etc??

In fact, they attacked him when he came out about Benghazi.

bluefox on August 7, 2013 at 6:22 PM

We don’t know that. What we DO know is that Mittmentum got his ass handed to him by the most beatable incumbent in a century. After we had been told for four years what a lead-pipe cinch a moderate milquetoast would be.

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 6:21 PM

We got handed a crap sandwich of incompetent bozos. None of them ended up being electable. Everyone one of them lost to Romney, who ended up not doing enough “marketing” and “politicking”.

Having Paul “Mr. Budget” Ryan, and Mitt “Turn Around Artist” Romney could have been brilliant, but they lacked the ability to sell it. It should have been an easy sell. It should have been easy to see that Obama, the Amateur, was bad for America. But as I have said before, Obama bought the low information voter with his bullshit. And the media were complicit as usual.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 7, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Ants are very industrious.

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Yes they are and they have a Queen:-)

bluefox on August 7, 2013 at 6:26 PM

We got handed a crap sandwich of incompetent bozos. None of them ended up being electable.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 7, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Mainly because the field had been prepped for the previous three years with loads of “don’t you even THINK about nominating some unelectable joke; (implicitly) it’s Mitt’s turn!” propaganda.

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 6:26 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

Also, Moesart’s point was that, if the GOP had run a socon, ALL 50 states would have voted for Obama.

Alabama would have picked a liberal over a socon? Really?

Do you know how many churches there are in Alabama?

Socon is a feature not a bug.

Resist We Much on August 7, 2013 at 6:21 PM

If RINOs could grasp that one simple point, the history of politics in this country would be totally different.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 7, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Having Paul “Mr. Budget” Ryan, and Mitt “Turn Around Artist” Romney could have been brilliant…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 7, 2013 at 6:25 PM

No, no, NO. Once ObamaCare passed, RomneyCare was dead meat. Romney had metaphysically ZERO chance of doing anything beyond winning the GOP nomination, since of course the GOPe is only good at going to battle against conservatives.

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 6:28 PM

bluefox on August 7, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Lol! Yes they do. ; )

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Mainly because the field had been prepped for the previous three years with loads of “don’t you even THINK about nominating some unelectable joke; (implicitly) it’s Mitt’s turn!” propaganda.

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 6:26 PM

I don’t remember it that way… but then I was out of the country for a good part of it.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 7, 2013 at 6:30 PM

There may indeed be only one or two candidates for the Republican nomination in 2016. Pretty sure Romney couldn’t figure out who it was if the name was tattooed backwards on his forehead.

novaculus on August 7, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Rick Santorum probably would have done better. He at least would have criticized Obama from the right, and been able to explain HOW Obama was hurting the economy.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 7, 2013 at 6:12 PM

The gay rights jokes right themselves. Instead of a dog on the roof, we would have had anal seepage and even more War on Women/Gays crap.

Santorum had no chance from the beginning.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 7, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Santorum was a weak candidate. My initial reaction to him entering the race for president was, “Why is he bothering?”

And he still would have done better than Romney. When you’re running for president, you have to be able to articulate why people should vote for you. Romney couldn’t do it.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 7, 2013 at 6:31 PM

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 7, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Santorum made me nauseous. I would have voted for him, just because I refuse not to vote, and I refuse to vote D. But I would had to get nose plugs.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 7, 2013 at 6:34 PM

I’ve held my nose and voted for two RINO loser trasholes in a row. If my option is another RINO loser or a democrat I will just stay home! F the RINO scumbags. Might as well just have one party if we keep nominating squishy East Coast Liberal Republicans (and before you tell me McShamnesty is from AZ lets take a look at how much of the last 40 years has been in DC).

Doomsday on August 7, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Can anyone even remember any central theme(s) from Romney’s campaign?

bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Hair.

portlandon on August 7, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Hey Mitt, get lost.

Take one of those next planes to Elysium you plutocrat.

The last thing we need is more advice from wussies who don’t fight and therefore cause 5-10% of the base in FL, OH, CO, and VA to not show up.

And to those others out there with even one molecule of political clout, let’s start the damn FREEDOM PARTY FCOL!

KirknBurker on August 7, 2013 at 6:37 PM

And he still would have done better than Romney. When you’re running for president, you have to be able to articulate why people should vote for you. Romney couldn’t do it.

There Goes the Neighborhood on August 7, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Better as in ‘woud have won’ ? Doubt that very much…

jimver on August 7, 2013 at 6:40 PM

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

Exit the stage Mr. Romney…..you are a LOOOOOSER.

You gave up the opportunity to effect change when you rolled over during the 2nd debate and lost your 6 point lead in the polls.

Like the way we feel about McCain now, we’re all going to probably be glad you did lose over the next few years. You’re a Progressive, big government republican like Dole, Bushes, McCain, Ford and Nixon.

GO AWAY MITT!

And see if you can take that AMNESTY SHILL Paul Ryan with you.

PappyD61 on August 7, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 6:29 PM

:-)

bluefox on August 7, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Gingrich didn’t attack the other candidates on the stage. He then rose in the polls, and Team Romney was so weak that all they could do is slime Gingrich.

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Then the blame should be squarely on the primary voters. If our own primary voters don’t have enough wits to see sliming and RINO-ism, then we are doomed to see Christie or Bush III in 2016.

kim roy on August 7, 2013 at 6:46 PM

All of Romney’s fight was against fellow republicans and conservatives in the primary.
Monkeytoe on August 7, 2013 at 3:37 PM

He went after Gingrich with an absolute ruthless fu*king vengeance. Next came Santorum. Even after it was already over. Ruthless. Pulled no punches.

Turned to Obama and he tripped over himself insisting what a nice guy he was just in over his head.

F*cking RINOs. They never change.

rrpjr on August 7, 2013 at 6:46 PM

novaculus on August 7, 2013 at 6:31 PM

I don’t know what Candidates will enter the race, but Jebbie is next in line:-) I read he’s organizing in every State for the run.

bluefox on August 7, 2013 at 6:47 PM

bluefox on August 7, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Allah just posted the latest Rasmussen. If primary’s were held today. Here.

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Even after losing the election Romney doesn’t get it. He plays the same tune regardless of the results. Just proves you can’t change rinos. They live in their own ignorant world. 2 rinos and 2 LOST potus elections and they want the same kind of candidate. Go away.

Charm on August 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Romney lost the 2012 General Election badly, to the Worst President in the History of United States of America.

I think I’d get campaign advice from someone else. Just sayin’.

a5minmajor on August 7, 2013 at 7:21 PM

If he did not believe that, then he was just a completely incompetent candidate from top to bottom with no possible strategy. Hanging his hopes on the economy is the only thing that makes any sense. Otherwise, what was his strategy? Just sit around and hope people vote for you?
Monkeytoe on August 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM

yeap pretty much. like I said above Mitt thought he was in a job interview. In a job interview you don’t tell the interviewer how bad the other guy is doing, you tell him you can do it better. that was the entire Mitt campaign. He tried to make the case that he was a better man than Obama. That he was in other words the lesser of two evil.

Mitt had no game plan he reacted to the new of the day, Obama would start an attack line and it would be a week or longer before Mitt could respond because ehe had to wait for the polls. He had no plan , he pushed the topic of the day. If the news said the economy was up he went and said it wasn’t improving fast enough. If the news said the economy was down he went and said it wouldn’t be with him. If some topic came up Mitt said he would handle it better.

Welcome to the campaign of the lesser of two evils.

no theme, no topic, no reason for running except he “better” than the other guy.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 7:25 PM

And in a situation where knowledgeable people were selecting a president based on track record and facts, Mitt would have won.

Unfortunately, as P.T. Barnum said, a sucker is born every minute, and Obama bought the suckers, hook, line, and sinker with false promises, hogwash, and Obama-phones.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on August 7, 2013 at 4:39 PM

People still don’t get it. there is fantasy and there is reality. the reality is the country is made up of all kind sof people. “knowledgeable” people (i.e management and job interviewers) are a small minority at best. Basing a campaign on attracting them is a losing proposition to begin with. Obama didn’t go after the “suckers” he went after a majority. Mitt blew away 47% of the population. He said he could never reach them. Mitt figured he had 45% in the bag that would vote for him regardless and Obama had those 47% so to Mitt the campaign was about winning those 8% and he tailored his entire campaign around trying to win those 8%

but the problem is that isn’t reality. Many of those 47% were up for grabs and many of the 45% he thought he had were also not firm votes. Instead of trying to win the majority Mitt tried to win the 8%

And the more he tried for those 8% the more he pis@ed off those 47% and those 45%. End result by trying to win that 8% Mitt lost far more votes then those 8% could ever give him.

unseen on August 7, 2013 at 7:32 PM

He (Romney) also warned against trying to defund ObamaCare by shutting down the government…

Spoken like a true rino, letting the Democrats frame the issue.

Obama is unilaterally shutting down parts of ObamaCare and he’s already handed out hundreds or thousands of waivers to his buddies.

Republicans would simply be refusing to fund a program that is failing on all fronts. The House would send a bill to the Senate funding all of government except the failing ObamaCare, if Harry Reid won’t put it up to a vote or Obama vetoes the funding bill, it they who are shutting down the government!

RJL on August 7, 2013 at 8:15 PM

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

History shows us that it’s the Republican rinos and “moderates” who can’t win.

RJL on August 7, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Can anyone even remember any central theme(s) from Romney’s campaign?

bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM

He killed a woman in Reno just to watch her die.

arnold ziffel on August 7, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Well ‘committing sociology with an open mike’ is a tricky thing, apparently this is what appeals to the big money fundraisers, that worked out well.

narciso on August 7, 2013 at 8:21 PM

arnold ziffel on August 7, 2013 at 8:19 PM

You sure that wasn’t a man and a guy named Cash?

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 8:23 PM

You sure that wasn’t a man and a guy named Cash?

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Mitt rmoney, copy cat killer.

arnold ziffel on August 7, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Can anyone even remember any central theme(s) from Romney’s campaign?

bw222 on August 7, 2013 at 3:02 PM

“The economy.”

And running dead on everything else except “the economy”.

David Blue on August 7, 2013 at 9:10 PM

arnold ziffel on August 7, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Lol! Good point. ; )

Bmore on August 7, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Even after losing the election Romney doesn’t get it. He plays the same tune regardless of the results. Just proves you can’t change rinos. They live in their own ignorant world. 2 rinos and 2 LOST potus elections and they want the same kind of candidate. Go away.

Charm on August 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Yeah, I wonder why Mitt and his superb organization just don’t fire it up again for 2016.

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Yeah, I wonder why Mitt and his superb organization just don’t fire it up again for 2016.

ddrintn on August 7, 2013 at 9:50 PM

They won’t need to. We’ll get the same old wine in a new wineskin, whoever it may be.

rrpjr on August 7, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Thanks Mitt but your advice is scrothced.

SparkPlug on August 7, 2013 at 10:06 PM

Look, Romney was not my guy, but he’s taken a lot of unfair flack.

No one could have beaten Obama. He had the entire press corps swooning. Crowley fixed the debate with a lie. The IRS was suppressing the Tea Party. State and CIA were covering up Benghazi. Obama even managed to continue taking in tens of millions in illegal foreign campaign contributions (most likely from the Chinese and Russians, who strongly prefer him to the GOP) by turning off credit card security.

Romney ran a good strong campaign and would have been a great President. Unfortunately, America didn’t deserve him. That’s what we need to change.

TallDave on August 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM

I think the two party system sucks because no one person ever fully represents your views so you find yourself having to make concessions and me personally if I have to pay higher taxes in order to make sure that my gay friends have all the same rights I do. Then I guess that’s what I have to do.

Politricks on August 7, 2013 at 6:04 PM

I don’t get this guy… First, everyone HAS the same rights here. That statement about not having the same rights is BS! Second, I really don’t care what you, your girlfriend, your boyfriend, or your wife’s boyfriend do on your own time. That’s none of my business.

So state your reasons where these “rights” are unfair.

Quite Frankly, if your only gripe is about getting married, well, it’s been put to a vote in many states already, even California. The majority won in those states.

If it’s about having a tax advantage because you would be married… then say so. BUT, you still would vote for the other guy, because he will raise your taxes. So WTF?

Guess what? You can have a SECRET ceremony somewhere and you can call yourself hitched. You can even have “Smoky the Bear” preside.
-west

mr_west on August 7, 2013 at 10:51 PM

Oh, and about the ROMINATOR…

Pulls out the stops to hit others in the PRIMARY, then, calls the O man a nice guy…. no balls what so ever!

-west

mr_west on August 7, 2013 at 10:57 PM

…a Romney thread?…and blueball hasn’t left secretions everywhere?

KOOLAID2 on August 7, 2013 at 11:57 PM

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

Oh, yeah. Instead, let’s nominate another RINO who will inevitably lose to the Democrat. Generally, RINOs lose! Let’s look at the post-Reagen Era:

1988: Bush Sr. Ran as a third term for Regan as a conservative. Won because of Regan.
1992: Bush Sr. Had been outed as a RINO. Lost.
1996: Dole. RINO. Lost.
2000: Bush Jr. RINO. Got very lucky. 200 votes in Florida lucky. Won.
2004: Bush Jr. RINO. Won as a war president.
2008: McCain. RINO. Lost.
2012: Romney. RINO. Lost.

Generally speaking, RINOs lose. With the exceptions of a coat-tails victory in 1988, an extremely lucky victory in 2000 without the majority of the vote and a 2004 war-time victory, the RINOs lost.

We need to nominate a Conservative, not a RINO.

Theophile on August 8, 2013 at 12:55 AM

I love the moronic secularists who keep backing losing candidates but say “it would have been worse if he were a social conservative.” Let’s run a social conservative in 2016 and see what happens because we know for a fact that running these democrat light candidates isn’t cutting it. Reagan and George W. were both social conservatives.

fight like a girl on August 8, 2013 at 1:27 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4