Redstate

Obama's appeal isn't that he's an executive. It's that he's rhetorically non-partisan. Thus, he's a lot more like McCain than Romney.

The country (and especially Is) is very sick of the Clinton-Bush partisanship. Obama is tapping into this real well. So is McCain.

However, many Rs don't want to move beyond the hyper-partisan era because it worked for them for much of the period. Enough Ds are buying it that Clinton is losing to Obama.

If Rs realize what is going on, they can still compete with a McCain-like candidate. But if they put up another partisan candidate, Obama may make this embarrassing.

Mitt's attack is cute, but it isn't insightful. Obama isn't winning on experience. He's winning on unity, soaring rhetoric, bipartisanship, and an end to the Clinton-Bush era of politics.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

He can not soar and be unifying for 12 months. Obama is an empty suit and the more he talks with emptiness the more people will realize his inexperience as an executive will matter.

And while the youngins came out to vote in these early primaries, they have traditionally peed the bed in the generals.

Mitt is not a sniper of partisinship. He can be very unifying with his warmth and he did afterall lead in a liberal state.

McCain is asleep, he is just ridiculously boring. Follow Bin Ladin to the gates of hell? Give me a break already.

Well young voters don't usually show up for multi-hour caucuses in freezing Iowa either. And this year it was during Christmas break when students were at home instead of at school in Iowa. Yet, Ds increased their turnout over 2005 by 66% (from 120,000 to 200,000) and much of it was younger voters.

If they'll travel to Iowa and sit through 2 hours of a caucus, I think they might show up on election day too.

I understand discounting the youth vote. But this time, they actually did come out. So the old model might not stay as accurate as usual.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

No way Mitt unifies the base, especially the south.

There are two candidates that are sure losers in the general, Mitt and Rudy. The evangelical base detest both of these guys, and if Obama is the opponent, the lack of grassroots campaigning will result in a 5-10% loss in Nov.

As hard as it is to swallow for some, if we don't nominate Fred, McCain or Huck, the working enthusiastic portion of the Republican party will sit at home all year.

Regardless of how good/bad Mitt is, look at the atmosphere of his events. The party is crazy if we think we can run that against Obama. Hillary maybe, but Obama never! Not without the coalition intact!!!

The South hates Yankee Republicans, although we're the states that need picked up if we're ever going to get back to majority status.

If Huck's the candidate, it's a two way street. Southerners aren't the only ones that get depressed or swing in the other direction.

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

Obama is one of the most liberal Senators, and extremely far left in his views. I believe he will fall dramatically when his record is exposed by a conservative like Romney, Huckabee, or McCain. The irony is Obama spends his time talking about bringing the country together, but his record is not moderate in any form. I think Romney, Huckabee, and McCain have more centrist records that will bring the country together. All three of these men can call him on his politics, and then explain how their records are truly in the center of what the country actually believes. If Hillary wants to win she should call him a far left liberal that could never win against a republican. She should run to his right as soon as possible.

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm

Sorry a state where people compete and voters vote. Only IA gets away with the whole caucus thing. NV and WY get no love and for good reason. Have a real primary and people will pay attention.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

We are every bit American as you are Adam C. Just because we don't have all the media idiots acting stuipid doesn't mean we don't count.

Double that if the delegate count comes down to the wire.

A little elite aren't we?

My May vote in a southern state is "a little elite," whatever.

You obviously don't understand how the primary works, but luckily for you your candidate does. The early states are about momentum for 2/5. The 1000 delegates that day matter far more than any of the early states which total about 150. If you don't win one of the primary states (or IA), you are going into 2/5 with no momentum.

The states with primaries (in order) are NH, MI, SC, and FL. IA only gets away with its caucus because it attracts candidates and thus the media (note the order there).

NV and WY choose to have caucuses. Their choice. No one campaigned and thus they don't give a candidate any momentum. Their delegates count just as much as NH. But Romney and McCain have spent time and mucho money in NH trying to win. Thus winning NH says a lot more about who is successful than who buys enough votes in a caucus where no one campaigned.

But I'm sure the Rombots will obsessively point out their decisive win in WY just like Hunter presented his "one delegate" speech today. And it will hurt their credibility.

Romney knows he must win NH (or at least MI), it's surprising his fans don't.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I am old enough to know a hell of a lot more about this process than you think. Your condescending attitude only re-enforces what I think of your comments. This election is different than any I have ever seen dating back to 1964. With different winners every week someone with a lot of seconds will still be in it. If they have money. With all your wisdom be my guest to tell us how it will shake out.

and that's what we're talking about.

WY's delegates count just like everyone else. But the "win" doesn't help the winner as much as NH will.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

But if Romney wins WY and NV with seconds in the rest he can go into 2/5 pointing at his broad base of support and wins in the West. Its got to help. Much more if he wins one or two of the others. This only works if the 1st place finishes are split up.

It's just my analysis that it won't help him be relevant on 2/5. Every state where he put time and money into his appeal and competed against an actual opponent, he would have lost.

And he can repeat the "I won the states no one visited" all he wants, but the free media will go to the winners of the competitive states who held primaries. And Mitt knows that. That's why he didn't go visit WY the day of the caucus. He wanted another day in NH.

And he won't visit NV because he wants to be in SC every possible day (unless he straight skips SC but that is real doubtful).

He gets the delegates. And there will be graphics of the "delegate count." But they aren't really "wins" because there wasn't really a competition.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

going into 2/5 it will make him relevant. The media will be talking about it. It's what they do.

No offense, but Romney winning WY is as significant as Hunter getting 1 delegate there. It means nothing to the overall nomination.

Thus winning NH says a lot more about who is successful than who buys enough votes in a caucus where no one campaigned.

I didn't realize the party faithful that make up the caucuses were just party whores for sale while the general public that shows up for primaries make up the intellectually honest crowd,

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

Iowa was not. The fake election was Iowa and the real election was Wyoming.

This is a case of perception trumps reality I guess.
Iowa and NH are more important than other races in January that have more delegates at stake because ... ??? ... can't seem to finish the sentence.

Because the candidates spend a lot of time and money in those states and there is an actual competition. Thus somebody actually wins and loses.

In IA and NH, the voters got to see and hear from most of the candidates. That isn't true in WY and NV. Further, WY and NV choose to have a caucus instead of a primary. If MI was a caucus it wouldn't matter either. But MI choose a primary so people will pay attention.

I understand why ex-post partisans for the little caucus winners would want WY and NV to matter, but if no one campaigns there then it's not going to register.

Romney knows this. That's why he didn't go to WY and stayed in NH. It's why he won't go to NV and instead will go to IA.

The delegates count. But they will be swamped by 2/5. The goal is to get momentum for 2/5. If Romney doesn't win IA, NH, MI, or SC after campaigning in those states, he will not have momentum going into 2/5. He knows this. Anyone paying enough attention to read RS knows this.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

this is the first time we have had this congested a primary and so you can't outright discard WY and NV. Delegate count will make up some of the momentum for Romney and is why he can come in 2cd every else and still be viable come 2/5. It shows his national appeal, especially if 1st place is won by different candidates elsewhere.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

for the laugh! Hadn't thought about Bluto Blutarsky in a long time.

Heh...that was a typo, what I meant was in his race against Mondale, didn't the MSM portray that race as closer than it was? There must be other examples of the press saying this candidate is a lot more viable against the opposing party, and I can't imagine they are right too often. The question I'm asking is, at this point, how much weight do the head to head polls carry?

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

In the near future for POTUS, it's all going to be about strategy and tactics, Xs and Os. Romney is the only guy in the race with a track record as an executive for developing strategy and tactics while delivering execution wit results.

Senate procedure, reading for SME status or writing of books is no substitute for plans and execution.

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

Futures markets have McCain around 80% to win and Romney around 18-20%. That's 5 to 1 if you put your money on Romney.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Betting against what I'm rooting for.

I have no doubt you'll believe this story, but right before Christmas break I had a few (and then a few more) pops, and decided I wanted to put $50 on McCain on Intrade, when he was around $9 a share. Unfortunately, I couldn't figure out how to register. I forgot about it for a couple of weeks, then saw your post the other day about how he was up around $30. Doh!

"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly

Very nice.

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

No recent poll has Fred ahead of Paul. Fred's around 1-4%. Paul is around 9-10%. Rudy and Paul are fighting for 4th. Fred has 6th locked up unless Hunter makes a move and pushing him to 7th.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

yeah, I realized that, and posted #16 to clarify. NH could be a good state for Ron Paul, but he won't win it.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I don't think Romney/Fred overlap that much. I mean Fred doesn't like Romney any more than McCain does. And Fred and McCain are good friends who worked together and have similar voting records. Maybe some of their supporters overlap, but Romney doesn't really have any friends in the other candidates (loads of attack ads has that effect).

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Who is Romney's potential Veep? what's the conventional wisdom on this?

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

I have a growing dislike of the ... *cough* individual.

MOlsen6
Proud supporter of McCain '00 and McCain '08

He has burned a lot of bridges, but he does have a lot of endorsements around the country. I think Sen. DeMint would be a good choice. I can't find a convenient list of endorsements on his site or I'd go through it.

But I haven't heard anyone mentioned a lot.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

so the odds of getting a conservative-friendly administration in that race is zero. Odds of CO2 regs ar 100%. Oy vey.

The Romney/Thompson unified conservatives are going to have to get it together to stop the RINO reshaping of the Reagan coalition.

that Fred and McCain voted the same in the Senate. They have very similar records overall. I understand the Huck and Rudy dislike since they deviate on a lot of major issues.

McCain has compromised on some major issues, but so did Fred (see campaign finance). Both are pro-life. Both supported the War. Both are against excess spending. It's why they get along so well and why Fred was one of very few big name Rs to support McCain in 2000.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Immigration is one issue, but it is a big issue. McCain authored a bill that was vehemently opposed by 80% of the base. Can anybody identify one example where Fred sided with democrats in opposition to 80% of the Republican base?

The Bush tax cuts were "1 vote" but it was a big vote. Can anyone cite an example where Fred was joined by only 2 other Respublicans but a majority of Democrats?

Water boarding?

Renouncing of McCain-Feingold?

Proposensity for sucking up to the MSM?

The differences may be relatively few, but they are quite significant.

But I haven't seen anything that makes me think he opposed McCain-Kennedy. I mean Romney, Huck, Rudy, McCain and Bush all supported the general idea of enforcement and path to citizenship. From what I can tell, so did Fred. But I guess since he didn't have to vote on it that makes it alright.

I said there were a few differences. But they are 95% similar and 5% dissimilar. It's why they get along so well.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

The reason Fred and McCain had similar voting records has something to do with the fact that they caucused together in the same legislative body while Romney and Huckabee had to govern a state?

Are there two U.S. Senate Republicans who served together in the past 20 years that don't have similar voting records? Not that that's a bad thing.

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

He's a NYC guy. I haven't seen any polls, but it wouldn't surprise me if Mitt or McCain were ahead of him in NY.