If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The American Spectator)   The "electability" argument is bankrupt on both philosophical and practical grounds. It destroys the party's soul and guarantees defeat   (spectator.org) divider line 104
    More: Obvious, Alexis de Tocqueville, big tent, Lucille Ball, Paul Tsongas, Tony Rezko, plutocrats, dole, EBT  
•       •       •

1523 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Feb 2012 at 1:36 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



104 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-01 09:58:20 AM  
How is this an indictment of Romney exactly? It's a much broader problem.

The purpose of politics in a republic is not simply to win but to win on sound principles.

OK. Then who among the others has sound principles? It isn't Gingrich.
 
2012-02-01 10:02:14 AM  
Yes, go with that.
 
2012-02-01 10:05:40 AM  
What the hell else are you going to talk about Romney or Gingrich?

Are you going to talk about their good ideas that will help fix our problems? They don't have any.

Are you going to talk about their previous experience running government? Neither one of them want to talk about it.

Both of these candidates are royal pieces of crap. They are both perfectly detestable people in their own special ways. The only thing that resonates with the modern GOP crowd is, "can he get Obama out of office?" The rest of the country is asking "should we replace Obama with one of these jerkoffs?" I'm hoping they answer "no."
 
2012-02-01 10:10:14 AM  
That Romney is a corny businessman of narrow learning and culture wouldn't be so deadly if he harbored conservative convictions.

This guy seems to think the GOP is still full of William F. Buckley types and not mouth-breathing jesus freaks. The 'base' are the people that love Sarah Palin and think she is qualified to be president. Congratulations Republicans, you turned your most ardent supporters into unintelligent and unstable cretins and now you get to deal with them.
 
2012-02-01 10:20:23 AM  
Electability is always second to message. Hillary Clinton lost in 2008 because her argument was only about electability and had no message. Howard Dean lost in 2004 because he had message and no electability. Romney has neither electability or message. Newt has message and no electability.

The only thing Romney has is that Republicans in power like is that he is able to tow the party line. All down ticket Republicans can say "What Romney says is what we believe." Every other candidate would have those same republicans running away from the nominee because he would say damaging things. This also relates to the VP on the ticket. A Romney win would make it impossible for them to not pick a Teabaggers for the VP slot, forcing the debate to whatever the VP says, like in 2008. So then you'd have a GOP ticket of the "Candidate who turns off working & middle class/Candidate who turns off moderates" Not exactly a winning ticket.
 
2012-02-01 10:24:17 AM  
If Newt Gingrich is the soul of your party, it's time to think about having an exorcism.
 
2012-02-01 10:32:00 AM  
The author's first mistake is assuming that politicians or political parties have souls.
 
2012-02-01 10:32:58 AM  

WTF Indeed: Electability is always second to message. Hillary Clinton lost in 2008 because her argument was only about electability and had no message. Howard Dean lost in 2004 because he had message and no electability. Romney has neither electability or message. Newt has message and no electability.


What electibility does is allow the media and others to forment the issues (message) for the guy they favor.

Newt is electable, Ron Paul is electable. Anybody is electable. If they weren't, then Obama would have been put to pasture early in the primaries. What Obama had going for him was that he didn't have the baggage that Hillary had.



Bottom line: If your guy is a weak candidate and you have to come up with only one reason to vote for him, electability is a faux foundation that allows you to slam a viable candidate.

//doesn't care who wins the election in November because Obama and Romney are both going to sell us down the river. If you think manufacturing is going to come back to the US*, you are mistaken.

*Got a kick from Obama's State of the Union Address where his "putting Americans back to work" program was begging the companies to move back to the USA. lol
 
2012-02-01 10:45:36 AM  
Yes, you really shouldn't worry about appealing to the voters when you're running for office. Such a minor problem.
 
2012-02-01 10:57:49 AM  
Romney spent $15M on TV ads in Florida, 92% of which were negative. McCain spent $11M on TV ads during his entire 2008 campaign. What Romney got for it was a hollow victory and a -27 point swing in his favorability numbers.
 
2012-02-01 10:58:36 AM  

WTF Indeed: Electability is always second to message. Hillary Clinton lost in 2008 because her argument was only about electability and had no message. Howard Dean lost in 2004 because he had message and no electability. Romney has neither electability or message. Newt has message and no electability.


I have always viewed modern Presidential elections to be a lot like a student government president elections. The people will vote for the person who is the cheerleader ("Go America!") that is also on the Honor Roll (or at least looks like they are in debates).

Reagan was a cheerleader (Carter and Mondale were neither cheerleaders nor on the honor roll)
George H.W. Bush was on the honor roll (Michael Dukakis was neither cheerleaders nor on the honor roll)
Bill Clinton was a cheerleader and on the honor roll, hence how he beat Bush Sr.
Clinton beat Dole because Dole was on the honor roll but not a cheerleader
Dubya was a cheerleader but most definitely not on the honor roll like Al Gore was... which is why it was such a close election.
John Kerry was neither a cheerleader nor was he on the honor roll, which is why Dubya got a second term.
In Obama v McCain, Obama is a cheerleader and he is on the honor roll, McCain is on the honor roll but he lacks the charisma to be a cheerleader.

If the republicans want to win they have to put up somebody who is both intelligent and charismatic... only more so that Barack Obama. And of their current slate of candidates I see nobody who will be able to reasonably challenge Obama on those counts.
 
2012-02-01 11:00:08 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Romney spent $15M on TV ads in Florida, 92% of which were negative. McCain spent $11M on TV ads during his entire 2008 campaign. What Romney got for it was a hollow victory and a -27 point swing in his favorability numbers.


I don't understand how that's possible. Was every single commercial on TV in Florida the last few weeks a Romney ad?
 
2012-02-01 11:01:39 AM  

DamnYankees: I don't understand how that's possible. Was every single commercial on TV in Florida the last few weeks a Romney ad?


He outspent Gingrich 5 to 1.

"For as long as I've been in politics, 14 years, journalists call me and ask if this is the most negative election ad atmosphere I've ever seen," says Kenneth Goldstein, president of Kantar Media CMAG, which tracks content and targeting of political advertising. "And every year I say, 'Don't be ridiculous.'"

"But this year it's true. This primary season is the most negative it's ever been," asserts Goldstein. "I have absolutely never seen television advertising so negative in a Republican presidential primary."

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-01 11:06:33 AM  

DamnYankees: Dusk-You-n-Me: Romney spent $15M on TV ads in Florida, 92% of which were negative. McCain spent $11M on TV ads during his entire 2008 campaign. What Romney got for it was a hollow victory and a -27 point swing in his favorability numbers.

I don't understand how that's possible. Was every single commercial on TV in Florida the last few weeks a Romney ad?


It's been awful.

On the positive side, my land line has been out since last Wed. so no robo calling, ads disguised as surveys, etc.
 
2012-02-01 11:08:22 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Romney spent $15M on TV ads in Florida, 92% of which were negative. McCain spent $11M on TV ads during his entire 2008 campaign. What Romney got for it was a hollow victory and a -27 point swing in his favorability numbers.


At this rate, by August he'll be characterized as "mean ol' man Romney"
 
2012-02-01 11:10:10 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: The author's first mistake is assuming that politicians or political parties have souls.


We're done now. Everybody go home.
 
2012-02-01 11:15:44 AM  
"Electability doesn't matter!"

say the people trailing in the polls.
 
2012-02-01 11:31:13 AM  
If there was someone with broad popular support, who had previously bowed out of running for President, but who could be convinced to stand in a convention fight, is there any chance we could see a dark horse rise in July? I actually don't remember how the delegate situation works in terms of delegates being required to vote for their state's candidate. But, say for example NYC mayor Bloomberg decides "Fark this, I have to get in and save this thing" (no comment on his ability to do so, just hypothetically). He spends his way to a groundswell of support amongst Republicans, that easily overshadows Romney. Could he waltz into the convention and have the gang appoint him as the candidate?

And a more important question. Would we over here at Fark wear out the "l" and "o" keys typing lolololololol if it happened?
 
2012-02-01 11:43:45 AM  
Instead of RON PAULing you, I've decided to argue your point.

EnviroDude: What electibility does is allow the media and others to forment the issues (message) for the guy they favor.


If a candidate allows his message to be controlled and formed by the media then he/she is a shiatty candidate.

EnviroDude: Newt is electable, Ron Paul is electable. Anybody is electable. If they weren't, then Obama would have been put to pasture early in the primaries. What Obama had going for him was that he didn't have the baggage that Hillary had.


Newt and Paul both have high negative opinion numbers, which means no matter what they say a majority of Americans don't like them as people, therefore will never vote for them. Obama won in 2008 because he had high favorables, which allowed his message to takeover. Hillary had a 50/50 split in favorables meaning you loved her or you hated her, which allowed for no growth of voter base.

EnviroDude: Bottom line: If your guy is a weak candidate and you have to come up with only one reason to vote for him, electability is a faux foundation that allows you to slam a viable candidate.


What is this? I don't even.

EnviroDude: *Got a kick from Obama's State of the Union Address where his "putting Americans back to work" program was begging the companies to move back to the USA. lol


To paraphrase A Few Good Men, you ask Obama to help create jobs then you question the manner in which he attempts to create them. The problem with the Right is not that you never fell for the "Hope and Change" it's that you fell HARD for it, but were the first to scream "Socialism! Muslim!" when things didn't work out immediately. The Tea Party is a direct product of a generation of people who have neither the courage or patience to see hard times through.
 
2012-02-01 11:48:17 AM  

dahmers love zombie: But, say for example NYC mayor Bloomberg decides "Fark this, I have to get in and save this thing" (no comment on his ability to do so, just hypothetically). He spends his way to a groundswell of support amongst Republicans, that easily overshadows Romney. Could he waltz into the convention and have the gang appoint him as the candidate?


Romney is too connected to allow that to happen. He wants to be president and will do anything to get there. Maybe if Romney and Newt had a 'party first' mentality (or even a 'country-first' mentality since they think Obama is doing so badly) they might step aside and allow someone with a chance in hell to have the nomination, but they won't. They are both too selfish.
 
2012-02-01 11:54:25 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Romney spent $15M on TV ads in Florida, 92% of which were negative. McCain spent $11M on TV ads during his entire 2008 campaign. What Romney got for it was a hollow victory and a -27 point swing in his favorability numbers.


He is adding cash to the economy. Not in terribly useful areas, but he's giving editors and stations cash, and that, I am sure, will trickle down eventually...
 
2012-02-01 11:55:55 AM  

dahmers love zombie: But, say for example NYC mayor Bloomberg decides "Fark this, I have to get in and save this thing" (no comment on his ability to do so, just hypothetically). He spends his way to a groundswell of support amongst Republicans, that easily overshadows Romney. Could he waltz into the convention and have the gang appoint him as the candidate?


Not a farking chance. Bloomberg does not have the broad popular support you think he does - his reputation as a smug nannying asshat precedes him, and he's now despised even more than 9iu11iani, At least in the Giuliani years there was an actual crime problem to tackle. The only reason New Yorkers tolerate Bloomberg is that they remember that the city's Democratic machine is an astoundingly corrupt gallery of race-pimps, bunglers and rent-seekers.
 
2012-02-01 11:59:41 AM  

Gulper Eel: dahmers love zombie: But, say for example NYC mayor Bloomberg decides "Fark this, I have to get in and save this thing" (no comment on his ability to do so, just hypothetically). He spends his way to a groundswell of support amongst Republicans, that easily overshadows Romney. Could he waltz into the convention and have the gang appoint him as the candidate?

Not a farking chance. Bloomberg does not have the broad popular support you think he does - his reputation as a smug nannying asshat precedes him, and he's now despised even more than 9iu11iani, At least in the Giuliani years there was an actual crime problem to tackle. The only reason New Yorkers tolerate Bloomberg is that they remember that the city's Democratic machine is an astoundingly corrupt gallery of race-pimps, bunglers and rent-seekers.


Also, because of registration deadlines, nobody but those in the race can currently win. Someone can play spoiler for a deadlocked convention though.
 
2012-02-01 12:01:41 PM  

dahmers love zombie: But, say for example NYC mayor Bloomberg decides "Fark this, I have to get in and save this thing" (no comment on his ability to do so, just hypothetically). He spends his way to a groundswell of support amongst Republicans, that easily overshadows Romney. Could he waltz into the convention and have the gang appoint him as the candidate?


Yes, it can happen. The way it would most likely occur is if at the end of the process Romney does not have 51% of the delegates for the convention. Any delegates for the "Not Romney" candidate can then theoretically choose whomever they want, their candidate will usually request that their delegates vote for candidate "X" but there is no requirement for it.

A deep pocketed dark horse could come in and shove $10,000 in the pocket of every one of those delegates (a theoretically legal act, though very unethical) and be able to collect enough delegates to capture the nomination.

Another scenario is one that was rumored to have been possible in the 2008 Democratic race, where Clinton supporters were leaning on Obama and Edwards delegates trying to get them to flip, because once again a delegate is not bound by law to vote the way that they are told to when they get to the convention.
 
2012-02-01 12:19:38 PM  

GAT_00: Gulper Eel: dahmers love zombie: But, say for example NYC mayor Bloomberg decides "Fark this, I have to get in and save this thing" (no comment on his ability to do so, just hypothetically). He spends his way to a groundswell of support amongst Republicans, that easily overshadows Romney. Could he waltz into the convention and have the gang appoint him as the candidate?

Not a farking chance. Bloomberg does not have the broad popular support you think he does - his reputation as a smug nannying asshat precedes him, and he's now despised even more than 9iu11iani, At least in the Giuliani years there was an actual crime problem to tackle. The only reason New Yorkers tolerate Bloomberg is that they remember that the city's Democratic machine is an astoundingly corrupt gallery of race-pimps, bunglers and rent-seekers.

Also, because of registration deadlines, nobody but those in the race can currently win. Someone can play spoiler for a deadlocked convention though.


To be fair, you've pretty much explained Gingrich's place in the race. He wants to trade delegates for some serious "owesies." He'll stay in through the whole thing so he has something to make a deal for.
 
2012-02-01 12:23:49 PM  
Ohio:

Romney Fav/Unfav 28/56
Romney Fav/Unfav w/ Independents 30/53
Obama/Romney 49/42

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-01 12:30:03 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: Romney is too connected to allow that to happen. He wants to be president and will do anything to get there.


If I were Mittens, I would have switched parties last year and then sat it out until 2016 to run as a Democrat. His centrist cred is just as good as his right wing cred and he could correctly claim that the Republicans have moved too far right, so he's switching to the party that represents the middle... If that happened, I have no doubt that the same people who support him today as a conservative would be claiming he was the liberalest liberal governor evar.
 
2012-02-01 01:40:50 PM  
Do they really think Romney is electable? He has a 23% favorability rating with independents.
 
2012-02-01 01:42:57 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: If Newt Gingrich is the soul of your party, it's time to think about having an exorcism.


Ok as a right wing nutjob, that was pretty funny. Well played.
 
2012-02-01 01:47:59 PM  
The author does have a point. Let's face it ... the absolute only reason Romney is winning is because it's such a weak ticket and he's has the means to outspend his opponent 15:1. When he gets to the general election and faces off someone who can not only match him dollar for dollar but eclipse him in charisma and personality, he's going to get get slaughtered like he has in every other election he's ever been in.

Lost in the shuffle of the bumbling amateur qualities of the not-Romneys is the fact that Romney did his damnedest to make this a competitive race in which he could outspend his opponents 20:1 and had all the establishment machinery behind him.
 
2012-02-01 01:50:03 PM  
The only gun in the running who had 'Sound Principles' was Huntsman, and he never got past single digit polling and left the race.
 
2012-02-01 01:53:33 PM  
You can just taste the sadness in this article. I'm getting the feeling that this article is just a sample of all the general unease Republicans feel this year. They have one electable guy and 7 nuts running. I feel like this watching it all...

cdn.images.1.ranker.com
 
2012-02-01 01:58:03 PM  
In short, compromise is bad.

Supporting candidates and ideas that can find broad appeal among American citizens is bad.
And when Romney loses, it's will be because the party didn't swing far enough to the right.
The self-deluding narrative is already being written.

Someone needs to remind these schmucks that this is a country that we all share. If you can't share and accept compromise and that we are all real Americans, then perhaps you should do something more productive and fruitful. I might suggest moving to Newt's moon colony.
 
2012-02-01 01:59:19 PM  

Diogenes: How is this an indictment of Romney exactly? It's a much broader problem.

The purpose of politics in a republic is not simply to win but to win on sound principles.

OK. Then who among the others has sound principles? It isn't Gingrich.


Perhaps not, but neither does the party. That's what makes Newt so perfect. He's the blackened, shriveled soul of the GOP. He's irritable, hypocritical, thinks all black people are on welfare, loves Reagan (not his policies, just his Reaganosity), lacks cognitive dissonance when talking about small government and expanding government in the same breath... He's f*cking made for them.
 
2012-02-01 02:01:03 PM  
Republicans then: Obama is so horrible of a president any Republican will win!!

Republicans now: Oh shiat none of our candidates can win!
 
2012-02-01 02:02:19 PM  

Cinaed: The only gun in the running who had 'Sound Principles' was Huntsman, and he never got past single digit polling and left the race.


Buddy Roemer! Why does everybody forget that guy?

Oh, right. Most people never even heard of him.
 
2012-02-01 02:02:25 PM  

CPennypacker: Do they really think Romney is electable? He has a 23% favorability rating with independents.


And his unfavorables go up the more people know about him. That's not a good sign.
 
2012-02-01 02:03:26 PM  
Mitt Romney's plastic and philosophically vapid campaign

Well, at least he's up front about his bias. That's something, I guess.
 
2012-02-01 02:03:37 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: That Romney is a corny businessman of narrow learning and culture wouldn't be so deadly if he harbored conservative convictions.

This guy seems to think the GOP is still full of William F. Buckley types and not mouth-breathing jesus freaks. The 'base' are the people that love Sarah Palin and think she is qualified to be president. Congratulations Republicans, you turned your most ardent supporters into unintelligent and unstable cretins and now you get to deal with them.


Correction. We all have to deal with them.

They've managed to secure seats at the legislative table in all 50 states, and some governor's mansions too.

Worse still, because progressives and other liberals didn't get out and vote in numbers to offset Tea Party enthusiasm in 2010, many state legislatures shifted right, and have attempted to gerrymander themselves into the majority at all levels of government from county to state to Congress for the next 10 years.
 
2012-02-01 02:03:41 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Cinaed: The only gun in the running who had 'Sound Principles' was Huntsman, and he never got past single digit polling and left the race.

Buddy Roemer! Why does everybody forget that guy?

Oh, right. Most people never even heard of him.


Well, he has ONE sound principle: get the money back out of politics.

What else would he do in office? No one knows.
 
2012-02-01 02:03:59 PM  
Yeah....Romney's screwed
 
2012-02-01 02:06:20 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Ohio:

Romney Fav/Unfav 28/56
Romney Fav/Unfav w/ Independents 30/53
Obama/Romney 49/42

Link (new window)


*spends another $50 on Obama to win on Intrade*
 
2012-02-01 02:08:10 PM  

Johnnyknox: Yeah....Romney's screwed


Yes, just talk to president kerry about that...

// that link is actually predicting the election based on "approval" numbers
 
2012-02-01 02:10:16 PM  

Johnnyknox: Yeah....Romney's screwed


That's got to be the most hilarious methodology I've ever seen in an election prediction.
 
2012-02-01 02:10:16 PM  

Johnnyknox: Yeah....Romney's screwed


From your link:
If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.

Generic Republican for President!
 
2012-02-01 02:14:16 PM  

Johnnyknox: Yeah....Romney's screwed


Thing is, the ballot doesn't say "do you think the president is doing a good job? YES/NO"

They say "Select one of the following:

OBAMA, Barack H.
ROMNEY, W. Mitt
LAROUCHE, Lyndon
DICKBALL, Loserman
IDIOT, Insane
NUTCASE, Religious"

With party affiliations and all that. And in that case, 10 months from now a whole lotta people are gonna do a whole lotta ponderin. There's also about a BILLION dollars in spending gonna happen between now and then. And all the dirt that can be dug up on Obama has been. Romney, there's acres of digging left.
 
2012-02-01 02:15:22 PM  
You know, I'm really quite disappointed the GOP nominee won't be full DERP. Had they gone full Derp and lost in a landslide, it might be a clue that Derp isn't working. Unfortunately all they will learn from Romney's loss is that they didn't go Derp enough. Sad, sad really.
 
2012-02-01 02:17:41 PM  

LockeOak: *spends another $50 on Obama to win on Intrade*


Easy doubling of your money. Too bad the idiots will hold on like they did for McCain, so we'll have to wait until the actual election to cash in.

McCain was bid up to like 70% for a bit in October 2008, while Palin was being hidden from the press and after his "suspending my campaign" stunt. Farking hilarious. I really should have bought much more than I did. There was just no doubt of the outcome.
 
2012-02-01 02:18:04 PM  

Lando Lincoln: What the hell else are you going to talk about Romney or Gingrich? ... The only thing that resonates with the modern GOP crowd is, "can he get Obama out of office?"


The GOP is terrific at explaining what they are against. Good luck figuring out what they are for.
 
2012-02-01 02:19:21 PM  
but to win on sound principles. A party that pursues victory by scrapping or sidelining its platform will have no truth left with which to govern once it does.

Man, conservatives sure love to compliment themselves on how principled they are.
 
Displayed 50 of 104 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report