Erick Erickson of Redstate blog...

U

usta in Portland

Daily Driver
is being quoted as saying that Romney will be the GOP pick and that he will lose to Obama as a result of his unacceptability to conservatives-apparently losing as conservative voters will just stay home on election day, I guess. Do the conservative folks here think that either or both of these assertions is true?:hmm:
 
If he gets the nomination, which is becoming increasingly likely because there are no serious candidates that are deemed acceptable, he will very likely lose in my opinion. I think most of the other candidates will as well. The only two candidates with any real chance to beat Obama is Ron Paul (the only serious candidate in my opinion) and maybe Gingrich. Gingrich has been running a surprisingly good campaign lately so I wouldn't count him out.
 
What is your reasoning....

on Romney losing to Obama?

Erickson dismissed Gingrinch on grounds of his, um, marital adventures-big deal in my opinion, but I'm not a Republican female voter.... He likewise shoved Cain under the bus on the basis of the 'sexual harassment' issue.

The article I read didn't say why he had discounted Paul.
 
When/if Cain implodes, likely very soon unless he ups his game real quick, Gingrich is next in line for "flavor of the week". The GOP does not want Romney for a whole host of reasons and will nominate someone else if at all reasonably possible. If Gingrich can't pull it off once Cain is out of the picture it will likely be Romney. I think Ron Paul will have no luck getting more then 20% because his foreign policy is too unpopular and misunderstood by the average Republican. Romney is one of the most unprincipled politicians I've ever seen and I can't see him beating Obama under most of the likely possible circumstances.
 
He probably didn't say why he discounted Paul because most of the GOP discounts him out of hand and it kind of goes without saying. Which is why he almost certainly won't win. His only chance is currency crisis sometime in the next 3 months.
 
You don't think there is enough....

"anyone but Obama" juice to get him over the top? I do see that Romney doesn't offer much to the independent voters (whoever they may be ) over Obama; kind of a 'choose your poison' on that front I suppose.
I can see that Obama could pull some-maybe a bunch- of disgruntled Dems back if he winds down the Afghan campaign.

Can't say that I see Romney's attraction at all-except he seems to have been annoited as the 'electable' if not exactly the 'elect':laugh:
 
Obama could lose to anyone simply because he is a truly awful president but when he has a truly awful opponent and he possess the power of incumbentcy as well as the ability to bribe the people with the people's money my money is on reelection.
 
That is certainly possible and it would be the worst possible outcome for the conservative movement.
 
Still early but unfortunately at this point I'll have to say Romney looks like the nominee. He's not my pick but he's far more qualified than Obama (for just about ANYthing, let alone president) and can probably wup him in a debate. Based on Obama's track record, Romney and the GOP have plenty of ammo for both strong debates and an effective advertising campaign...if they use it wisely. A big "if".

However, Obama's got the creative and financial power of Big Hollywood behind him, plus the unions, all of academia and of course 95% of the media. Oh, and over $1B for propaganda purposes.

The general election will be a very tough battle for any republican candidate. What we really need is someone who looks like Romney, is as smart as Newt, and as articulate as Huckabee. :2c:
 
I don't know that Erickson...

didn't say why he dismissed Paul, it's just that the article didn't mention it at all. But, I think you are right that he has been sidelined from the get go as far as the established party is concerned-probably for perfectly sound, if cynical, reasons.

I'm beginning to think that Obama may just start pressing the unpopularity of the Republican Congress as the main means to counter any candidate. After another year of obstruction (however valid the obstruction may be) and it could start looking like sheer nihilism to the fed up part of the electorate (a big number). Not sure what Romney can do to deflect that-he says he knows how to create jobs but that is just talk with no trousers behind it-nobody knows how to do that from the seat in the White House. The economy being stalled a year from now doesn't necessarily give either side an advantage. It could come down to who plays the blame game the best. There won't be any other issue of importance (barring some catastrophe) so it will once again be 'the economy stupid' campaign.
 
You wrote, "Bill Clinton isn't a Republican."

After WJC left office, I seem to recall a lot of "lefty" pundits talking about the Clinton presidency as one of the best Republican presidencies in recent memory:hmm:
 
This was their mistake: "Unlike the Wisconsin law, which exempted police and firefighters, the Ohio bill included them. We Are Ohio featured safety forces in their ads."

They just opened themselves up to accusations of cutting police and firefighters. Doh.


But it does stand as a lesson in special privilege. Once these privileges are passed, it's damned near impossible to put the toothpaste back into the tube because the special interest group beneficiaries have so much more to lose than does the general public/taxpayer on an issue-by-issue basis.
 
Last edited:
Well, true...

but it was just a joke Dan:)

Could we ditch the 'lefty' term around here-it lacks precision and just sounds antagonistic. Or maybe every conservative needs to be called a 'rightwinger' for balance. Also socialist, unless talking about honest to God book definition socialists-otherwise the dyed in the wool conservatives need to put up with 'reactionary' , again on balance
I'm just saying as a matter of cooling the discussions down.
 
Yes, and so it will prove...

in the Supercommittee process-the issue won't be how to reduce spending but who to reduce based on clout. Personally I hope they deadlock and and actually institute the across-the-board cuts and then everyone will be surprised how little difference a 10% cut actually makes in the national life.:wink2:
 
What I meant was that I seem to remember a lot of left-leaning Dems lamenting the fact that Clinton was so much of a Centrist that his presidency could have easily been mistaken for that of a "moderate" Republican.
 
Yes, WhiteyM

it will be a tough fight for all the reasons you've laid out.

However... a new Gallup poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150611/Democrats-Liberal-Less-White-2008.aspx shows that self-described conservatives now outnumber self-described liberals in the United States, 42% to 21%. 37% of those polled described themselves as moderates.

In a trend that began in early 2008, the number of people who describe themselves as conservative has increased while the number of people identifying themselves as liberal or moderate have decreased.

President Obama has shown that - unlike Bill Clinton - he is betting his future chances of being elected to a second term on his efforts to strengthen his leftwing credentials.

This is a center-right country, so this upcoming election should be very interesting.
 
true dat!

Dan Sarandrea (Phila) said:
This was their mistake: "Unlike the Wisconsin law, which exempted police and firefighters, the Ohio bill included them. We Are Ohio featured safety forces in their ads."

They just opened themselves up to accusations of cutting police and firefighters. Doh.

But it does stand as a lesson in special privilege. Once these privileges are passed, it's damned near impossible to put the toothpaste back into the tube because the special interest group beneficiaries have so much more to lose than do the general public/taxpayer on an issue-by-issue basis.
Click to expand...

Yep, Kasich definitely made a mistake by not following the Wisconsin template, Dan. Public employee unions are powerful and have a ton of money to use as they see fit, which is usually to play on people's emotions. I just watched an American Postal Workers Union ad on TV that depicts postal workers as veterans (complete with names and "back then/now" photos) and voiceover that talks about the meanies/bad guys who now want to fire these fine, selfless military veteran/postal workers.

Another outcome in Ohio that was very interesting was the voters choosing to opt out of the ObamaCare mandate.

Next up will be the election in Virginia. Should be interesting!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top