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

Romney never fought the incompetent, unqualified, lying, economically disastrous B.S. artist In Chief.

Which makes his further opinions valueless and void.

So he needs to shut up and go away.

profitsbeard on August 8, 2013 at 1:31 AM

Electability in a nominee is key.

Been there, done that. Remember, Mittens and the need for him to be the nominee was all about, him being the ‘electable One’.

The only metric on electability, is if a nominee can get elected. In other words, its a bunk concept which seems to be used to pick our next ‘respectable loser’.

Not playing that anymore.

Sharr on August 8, 2013 at 3:21 AM

Shut up and go away and take that freedom-wrecking cowboy with you.

MelonCollie on August 8, 2013 at 3:57 AM

So the bland, offend few GOP candidate who didn’t really stand for any extreme GOP positions, who was seen as a quasi-moderate amenable to moderates, who lost significantly is warning us not to pick anyone other than another candidate the Independents will like because winning is the only thing that matters.

If we’re going to pick a candidate who doesn’t support the issues we think are important why do we care if he is electable?

katiejane on August 8, 2013 at 8:14 AM

Ouch. I already deeply regret my ’08 vote and am now moving on to reflect on my ’12 vote. Why is it so difficult for failed politicians to go quietly into the night? Even Carter can’t give up the spotlight.

Kissmygrits on August 8, 2013 at 9:03 AM

I would really rather be living in Mitt Romney’s America. Mitt and Paul Ryan’s campaign peaked in a place in Colorado called Red Rock. That America they wanted to bring back sounded pretty good to me, and the only thing that prevented it, was the hard work of Obama for America activists, busing the voters to the polls in battleground states. Romney lost the battleground states by less than a million votes.

Did you do your part? ask yourself. And, ask yourself, if you do not get exactly the identity vote candidate you want in 2016 will you work even harder to elect the GOP nominee than you did last time? And if not, why not, and if you consider it a personal character flaw? Will you drive people to the polls who have not voted in the past, to save your country? Why or why not?

Romney got enough votes to handily win every red state, by at least 60% in most of them. How will you help the GOP win in the battlegrounds? If it is at all possible that you are moving, head for a battleground state like Florida, or Virginia or Colorado. 100,000 voters in these places could make all the difference. The losses in the battleground states were all narrow when the votes were counted. If you live in DC, get to the suburbs. There is no point if you are a conservative living and voting in DC! Maybe you want to retire to Florida and shout down Jeb Bush, and support Alan West.

What will you do differently next time?

Fleuries on August 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Mitt Romney is truly clueless. After that sad, milquetoast campaign he ran, he thinks his advice is wanted or needed. I’d be flabbergasted at his oblivion, but I’m far too tired of the RINO Party, formerly known as the Republican Party, to feel much of anything about these fools. Third national party, guys. Come on. You’ve wasted enough time agonizing over the scary newness of it all. Just do it and let’s move as one in 2014 and 2016.

blackgriffin on August 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Sorry dude, you wouldn’t even be the last one I’d go to for advice.

hawkeye54 on August 8, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Did you do your part? ask yourself. What will you do differently next time?

Fleuries on August 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM

No, the question is, did HE do HIS part? He’s the top of the ticket, the straw that stirs the drink, and ultimately he’s responsible for the fight or lack of fight in his campaign. He failed us so miserably it’s hard to comprehend. It is honestly hard to come up with the proper way and words to encompass his failure. How much evidence of Obama’s disastrous policies and poisonous machinations did he refuse or fail to take to the people? How many opportunities to dump on Obama with righteous anger did he miss? In how many ways did he play it safe when he should have been bringing the pain?

What will I do differently? NEVER vote for or support a RINO again. I did my part for Romney, as I did for McCain — all the while warning the GOP that both candidates were hopeless, toothless losers who would fold when crunch time came. I was right. Next time, if the GOP tries another RINO, I won’t lift a finger. I will turn all my energies to a third party.

rrpjr on August 8, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Mitt, you seem like a nice guy, but….

Please STFU now and go away.

Thank you.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on August 8, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Romney got enough votes to handily win every red state, by at least 60% in most of them. How will you help the GOP win in the battlegrounds?

Fleuries on August 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM

As rrpjr said, that was Romney’s job, not mine. I did my part: I held my nose once again and voted for a squish. Never again, though.

ddrintn on August 8, 2013 at 2:08 PM

At least a third national party would not be part of that settlement from the eighties in which the Repubs agreed not to investigate voter fraud.

blackgriffin on August 8, 2013 at 4:57 PM

And he even picked Paul Ryan as his #2.
.
Oh the humanity………..

FlaMurph on August 9, 2013 at 12:19 AM

And…..

Been there, done that. Remember, Mittens and the need for him to be the nominee was all about, him being the ‘electable One’.

.
You may recall…… Mitt was the ONLY “electable One” after that sorry display of “GOP” contenders, bumbling through the primaries.
.
Notice how “ONLY” is emphasized as the operative word there.
.
Sour ABR grapes aside, stop trying to rewrite the campaign history to make it something other than it was – that’s what we have the liberals for.
.
Mitt was it.
Stop whining.
Reload.

FlaMurph on August 9, 2013 at 12:33 AM

Mitt was it.

FlaMurph on August 9, 2013 at 12:33 AM

The fact that Barack Obama is still President, with everything that was known at the time of the election, strongly suggests otherwise.

Cylor on August 9, 2013 at 5:26 AM

“Mitt ‘was the only electable one’” after he and his supporters trashed every other contender to the point where mending fences for the general was nearly impossible. Then, Mitt didn’t even try. He never reached out to conservatives. He insulted the Palin supporters with the Convention snub. Then, after winning one debate, he bent over and waited for Obama to do the rest. F*ck him.

SurferDoc on August 9, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Cylor on August 9, 2013 at 5:26 AM

.
Would you rather- “Mitt Was all we had”
-
and do you think 2016 looks any better ?
-

FlaMurph on August 9, 2013 at 4:53 PM

FlaMurph on August 9, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Provided we stop clinging to such idiotic delusions that McCain/Romney/Christie/Jeb is “the best we can do”, 2016 could potentially look much better, yes.

Cylor on August 10, 2013 at 2:13 AM

Romney is not just a loser but he is a 2 time loser, even after spending 10 years on the Campaign Trail! Thanks GOP you POS’s need to be run out of Politics!

el Vaquero on August 10, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4