Santorum spanks Romney

[mick e]

Romney Engulfed By Frothy Surge.

[mick e]

Also - The republican primaries?

[beagledave]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=beagledave]
We've know for a number of weeks now that this will be a protracted process. The second tier players are shifting around some (Paul might even win some obscure primary before this is done).

At the end of the day, Romney will win...grudgingly for many GOP folks.

Then it will be about (1) Will the economy be trending upward enough to help Obama, (2) Will there be more people who "want something different...and not fuss about about who that is" (in which case Romney wins) or will more people do an actual scrutiny of Romney (in which case Obama wins).

There is always some unseen element (3) like military action somewhere.

I think that pretty much sums it up, but I would add another wildcard - the anonymous and unlimited spending that individuals and groups can do now since Citizens United. This will be the first presidential campaign since that decision so it's kind of hard to tell for sure just how much impact it will have. The Koch brothers and like minded 0.1%'s seem bound and determined to spend as much money as needed to make sure Obama isn't reelected. That may not matter, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if in a close election like this one is bound to be, that huge amounts of negative PAC advertising against Obama may be enough to swing a couple of crucial states' electoral college votes to Romney.
Good point. I had forgotten that Citizens United happened AFTER the 2008 elections. I'm sure that local ad executives in swing states are already looking at how big a boat payment that they will be able to afford now.

[Sam3]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=beagledave]
We've know for a number of weeks now that this will be a protracted process. The second tier players are shifting around some (Paul might even win some obscure primary before this is done).

At the end of the day, Romney will win...grudgingly for many GOP folks.

Then it will be about (1) Will the economy be trending upward enough to help Obama, (2) Will there be more people who "want something different...and not fuss about about who that is" (in which case Romney wins) or will more people do an actual scrutiny of Romney (in which case Obama wins).

There is always some unseen element (3) like military action somewhere.

I think that pretty much sums it up, but I would add another wildcard - the anonymous and unlimited spending that individuals and groups can do now since Citizens United. This will be the first presidential campaign since that decision so it's kind of hard to tell for sure just how much impact it will have. The Koch brothers and like minded 0.1%'s seem bound and determined to spend as much money as needed to make sure Obama isn't reelected. That may not matter, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if in a close election like this one is bound to be, that huge amounts of negative PAC advertising against Obama may be enough to swing a couple of crucial states' electoral college votes to Romney.
Seeing that the President has now embraced Super-PAC funding for his own campaign, that wild card should become a non-issue. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07...61263.html

[Ted King]

Sam3 wrote:
[quote=Ted King]

I think that pretty much sums it up, but I would add another wildcard - the anonymous and unlimited spending that individuals and groups can do now since Citizens United. This will be the first presidential campaign since that decision so it's kind of hard to tell for sure just how much impact it will have. The Koch brothers and like minded 0.1%'s seem bound and determined to spend as much money as needed to make sure Obama isn't reelected. That may not matter, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if in a close election like this one is bound to be, that huge amounts of negative PAC advertising against Obama may be enough to swing a couple of crucial states' electoral college votes to Romney.

Seeing that the President has now embraced Super-PAC funding for his own campaign, that wild card should become a non-issue. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07...61263.html
Yeah, I read about that, but I doubt that Democratic leaning super-Pacs are going to be able to raise the kind of money that Republican leaning super-Pacs will - especially if multibillionaires like the Koch brothers decide that they've got a several hundred million dollars to spare for defeating Obama. I guess we'll see. Actually, I'm not sure that even if Obama gets grossly outspent (including super-Pac money) that it will make a lot of difference in the general election. The Republicans have spent the last three years massively vilifying Obama in every way possible, so more vilifying may not have much impact. But, then again...

[Grace62]

beagledave wrote:
At the end of the day, Romney will win...grudgingly for many GOP folks.


.

'

This is what the Democratic establishment was saying about Hillary Clinton at this point in the '08 primary contest. "Obama does not have the money or organization to win. He can't defeat the Clinton machine." It took until late April or so for people to finally concede that Clinton was running out of steam. So we'll have to see. Romney seemed quite rattled during his short speech last night, I don't think he saw that Colorado loss coming. He won big there in '08 and should have this time too.

And as you mentioned, the SuperPac spending IS a wild card because they can switch teams at any moment, as opposed to money that is dedicated to one campaign. We'll see if any money swings Santorum's way after last night, but the pro-Romney carpet bombing is sure to start up against him.
The more Romney gets out in front of people, the more he turns them off. Santorum clearly won the latest "likeability" contest. At that he's a lot better than Newt.

[beagledave]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=beagledave]
At the end of the day, Romney will win...grudgingly for many GOP folks.


.

'

This is what the Democratic establishment was saying about Hillary Clinton at this point in the '08 primary contest. .
I disagree.

"Neither Clinton nor Obama had a clear advantage heading into the Super Tuesday primaries, with 23 states and territories and 1,681 delegates at stake and more media attention than any primary election day in American history."

[Grace62]

beagledave wrote:
[quote=Grace62]
[quote=beagledave]
At the end of the day, Romney will win...grudgingly for many GOP folks.


.

'

This is what the Democratic establishment was saying about Hillary Clinton at this point in the '08 primary contest. .
I disagree.



"Neither Clinton nor Obama had a clear advantage heading into the Super Tuesday primaries, with 23 states and territories and 1,681 delegates at stake and more media attention than any primary election day in American history."

That's a backwards looking quote from wiki, not a quote from a pundit talking in winter 2008.

Anyway, I was actively campaigning for Obama beginning in Dec. '07 and was our precinct chair and a county delegate. Even after our governor endorsed Obama and he drew 20K people to a speech at Key Arena, the Clinton fans were still convinced she would prevail. It took a long time for them to give it up around the country, as I'm sure you recall.

[beagledave]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=beagledave]
[quote=Grace62]
[quote=beagledave]
At the end of the day, Romney will win...grudgingly for many GOP folks.


.

'

This is what the Democratic establishment was saying about Hillary Clinton at this point in the '08 primary contest. .
I disagree.



"Neither Clinton nor Obama had a clear advantage heading into the Super Tuesday primaries, with 23 states and territories and 1,681 delegates at stake and more media attention than any primary election day in American history."

That's a backwards looking quote from wiki, not a quote from a pundit talking in winter 2008.

Anyway, I was actively campaigning for Obama beginning in Dec. '07 and was our precinct chair and a county delegate. Even after our governor endorsed Obama and he drew 20K people to a speech at Key Arena, the Clinton fans were still convinced she would prevail. It took a long time for them to give it up around the country, as I'm sure you recall.
You made a claim with no cite, I respond WITH a cite (including delegate counts) as of winter 2008 that certainly do not support your assertion that Clinton was the presumptive nominee at this point.

The book Game Change which DID have plenty of interviews with Democratic folks does not really make that claim, either.

Can you support your assertion that "the Democratic establishment" (which certainly includes more than 'Clinton fans' ) was thinking in January/February 2008, what most pundits are thinking about Romney now?

[Grace62]

Nate Silver's take. After reading this I concluded that Nate Silver has little idea what to make of this race, so he's covering every possible bet. Romney's losses last night are both stunning and inexplicable and he can't afford to do that badly again.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com...ed-battle/