Considering that Romney is the only one who had a shot at beating Obama IMHO, I'm OK with this.

If Mitt's done and we've established that Gingrich will be the not-Romney candidate. Who will be the Romney candidate then? Huntsman?

Link (new window)

I don't need a Magic 8 Ball to tell me Outlook is a piece of shiat.

At this time four years ago, the race was defintily going to be between Hillary and Guiliani, remember?

Mitt will be the nominee, and he will lose to Obama. The only drama here is who takes the house and the senate.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Link (new window)

That's a nice graph and all, but if you look closely, he's still over 50 in most of those states. In Jan/Feb/March, most people had never heard of Herman Cain, Rick Perry or John Huntsman, and Newt wasn't in the race. Romney was the only game in town.

That would be the consequence of not actually trying to win anything.

what_now: Mitt will be the nominee, and he will lose to Obama.

Yeah, I've been saying this for months. I didn't post that chart to dispute it, just for information.

GAT_00: That would be the consequence of not actually trying to win anything.

His cunning plan to act like the heir apparent seems to be flawed.

But with Perry polling so low, he still has a shot at hair apparent.

Diogenes: His cunning plan to act like the heir apparent seems to be flawed.

Strange considering that's happened every time someone tried that in a crowded field.

what_now: The only drama here is who takes the house and the senate.

I'm scared of a third party (read: Ron Paul) bringing the conservative turn out up, even if it cements a second Obama presidency

SnakeLee: I'm scared of a third party (read: Ron Paul) bringing the conservative turn out up, even if it cements a second Obama presidency

Well, that's already cemented. A third party would actually be incredibly damaging to the country right now, because the lunatic fringe would come out of the woodwork to vote for anyone w/ an R after his name, and we'd end up with a Congress where Michele Bachman was one of the *smarter* ones.

There's always Thunderbird.

what_now: At this time four years ago, the race was defintily going to be between Hillary and Guiliani, remember?

Mitt will be the nominee, and he will lose to Obama. The only drama here is who takes the house and the senate.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Link (new window)

That's a nice graph and all, but if you look closely, he's still over 50 in most of those states. In Jan/Feb/March, most people had never heard of Herman Cain, Rick Perry or John Huntsman, and Newt wasn't in the race. Romney was the only game in town.

Funny I looked at the numbers posted 13 states and Mitt is over 50% in six states, that is not most.

GAT_00: Diogenes: His cunning plan to act like the heir apparent seems to be flawed.

Strange considering that's happened every time someone tried that in a crowded field.

Then it's got to be Romney himself. They really don't want to warm up to him. Maybe that's what's behind Newt - he excites them, even though he brings less to the table.

Diogenes: GAT_00: Diogenes: His cunning plan to act like the heir apparent seems to be flawed.

Strange considering that's happened every time someone tried that in a crowded field.

Then it's got to be Romney himself. They really don't want to warm up to him. Maybe that's what's behind Newt - he excites them, even though he brings less to the table.

No, I mean every single time before someone tried to coast through a crowded field as a frontrunner, they've eventually failed because they haven't given people a reason to vote for them.

Inevitability does not work in the modern primary election.

GAT_00: Diogenes: GAT_00: Diogenes: His cunning plan to act like the heir apparent seems to be flawed.

Strange considering that's happened every time someone tried that in a crowded field.

Then it's got to be Romney himself. They really don't want to warm up to him. Maybe that's what's behind Newt - he excites them, even though he brings less to the table.

No, I mean every single time before someone tried to coast through a crowded field as a frontrunner, they've eventually failed because they haven't given people a reason to vote for them.

Inevitability does not work in the modern primary election.

Oh, I misread you.

Well yeah! Look at the interview with the Fox guy they're running. His attitude there, and often in the the debates, has been "Why you sassin' me?"

Diogenes: Oh, I misread you.

Yeah, that was obvious. No worries.

But yeah, Romney's whole argument is that he's the frontrunner, therefore vote for him. He's refused to actually campaign, mostly because he's worried about underperforming - also the risk of a frontrunner in the modern media cycle that loves an underdog who does better than expected.

If you never campaign, then you can't do too well and can't blow yourself out of the water because you didn't hit 50% in Iowa.

GAT_00: Inevitability does not work in the modern primary election.

Andrew Cuomo?

RexTalionis: GAT_00: Inevitability does not work in the modern primary election.

Andrew Cuomo?

Oh, wait, primary.

RexTalionis: Andrew Cuomo

I'm only talking on a national scale.

Romney would NEVER use a Magic 8 ball, that is considered witchcraft.

Ed Finnerty: There's always Thunderbird.

What's the word? Thunderbird!

What's the price? Thirty twice!

GAT_00: Diogenes: GAT_00: Diogenes: His cunning plan to act like the heir apparent seems to be flawed.

Strange considering that's happened every time someone tried that in a crowded field.

Then it's got to be Romney himself. They really don't want to warm up to him. Maybe that's what's behind Newt - he excites them, even though he brings less to the table.

No, I mean every single time before someone tried to coast through a crowded field as a frontrunner, they've eventually failed because they haven't given people a reason to vote for them.

Inevitability does not work in the modern primary election.


Worked for McCain in the Primary just the last election cycle.
Like Kerry didn't work so well in the general.

The blandly-neutral, "I stand for everything and nothing simultaneously" empty-suit thing Romney has going on will earn him the nomination, certainly. That's just lowest-common-denominator politics. Unless he falls prey to the classic "Get caught with dead girl/live boy" trap, he's the least-offensive option amid a field of kooks, wingnuts, fascists, Teahadists, moral midgets, wild-eyed freaks, and flat-out idiots...All of which are at least two of those things.

But it's that same air of "least of all evils" inevitability he's coasting on that will mean he'll lose, and lose HARD to Obama in November.

Hey, they have to nominate SOMEBODY.

spongeboob: Worked for McCain in the Primary just the last election cycle.

McCain was not the frontrunner the entire time. Giuliani was the early frontrunner and Huckabee won Iowa.

MaxxLarge: Hey, they have to nominate SOMEBODY.

At this point, I think the best strategy would be to nominate "Generic Republican to be named later"

That guy is the only one who's polling well against Fartbongo.

He's in trouble if he remains in the wissing Mitness program.

MorrisBird: He's in trouble if he remains in the wissing Mitness program.

Mittens Wittless Program?

shivashakti: You know, most candidates have to worry about their deep dark secrets being exposed. I don't think there's going to be anything worse on Newt than we already know.

They turned him into a person!

...

He got better.

I have a feeling he'll be the only one standing once the GOP's circular firing squad of a primary is over.

shivashakti: You know, most candidates have to worry about their deep dark secrets being exposed. I don't think there's going to be anything worse on Newt than we already know.

To be fair, with Newt's biggest problem is the stuff that actually comes out of his mouth...

MaxxLarge: he's the least-offensive option amid a field of kooks, wingnuts, fascists, Teahadists, moral midgets, wild-eyed freaks, and flat-out idiots...All of which are at least two of those things.



"What do I gotta do to get noticed around here?"

Dusk-You-n-Me: [25.media.tumblr.com image 500x336]

Pretty much. There's only so much we can do to choose someone vaguely sane if the sane ones don't run. And more's the f*cking pity...

It's gonna be Newt, guys. Sorry.

I thought his well documented horribleness in the morality department would keep all the holy rollers from supporting him, but they don't seem to give a sh*t, and like it or not, Newt's the only one talking like he's got a pair (except Michele Bachmann and with her, it's more like a pair of brain clots).

They'll forgive and forget like a motherfu*ker if there's an R after your name and you appear to have a chance of getting the scary Kenyan out of the big chair.

MaxxLarge: he's the least-offensive option amid a field of kooks, wingnuts, fascists, Teahadists, moral midgets, wild-eyed freaks, and flat-out idiots...

You forgot ass-kickers, shiat-kickers and Methodists.

elchip: Gingrich has no chance of winning? Oh wait...

Were you supposed to be logged in as SkinnyHead there?