Monday, December 19, 2011

The Reality of the Upcoming Election

The other night I watched a Republican debate for the first time. I was struck by an answer that Ron Paul gave regarding his own electability. Paul said that right now any Republican could beat President Obama. I have heard Michelle Bachmann make the same argument. She has tried to hint that Republicans shouldn't "settle" because Obama is doing so poorly. I encourage to take a look at the current polling at Realclearpolitics. Apart from Romney, Republicans are getting scorched.

Romney folks have got to calmly point this out to their friends and neighbors over the next couple of months. There are a lot of Republicans voters that are confused about this. Some really do think that Gingrich's "good debating skills" will win the day. It will not. And thanks to Realclearpolitics, there is mounds of evidence that show this.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.


Right Wingnut said...

Where are "the mounds of evidence" to suggest that Romney is electable? I'm not talking about inconsequential polls taken a year out. History has proven those to be unreliable. I'm talking about Mitt's electoral history. It's littered with disappointing results.

Machtyn said...

I am a bit conflicted on this point. No, Obama won't be easy to beat. Do I think we'll find a Republican as POTUS in 2013? Yes. It almost doesn't matter who gets nominated... almost.

As we've stated and pointed out with all of the candidates, they all have flaws. Obama has the advantage of the bully pulpit, $1 billion to spend on character assassination, and being able to frame the talking points (the media is in his house, too). Plus he has been able to off bin Laden and pull troops out of Iraq. Many Democrats like ObamaCare, which is fulfills 2 major campaign promises.

Despite all of that, most of the Democrats have low enthusiasm for him. Most Independents disdain his "hope and change". So it will be a tight race.

I'm of the opinion that Romney can runaway with the election, a la Reagan. But if the Republican purists stay home, that will not be the case. If the purists get their way, the Independents may stay home and it will still be a very tight race. Something I recognize from the last election cycle is that the primary is a far different beast than the general.

Machtyn said...

meh, RWN, the same could be said about Lincoln and Reagan.

Anonymous said...

Better safe than sorry, I always say.


Right Wingnut said...

LOL. So now we're comparing Romney to Reagan and Lincoln. That's rather rich.

Revolution 2012 said...

Romney leads the other candidates vs. Obama by an average of 7+ points.

Machtyn said...

RWN: The comparison to Reagan started long ago. And they are fairly relevant.
Reagan: Once a Democrat, evolved into a Republican
Romney: Considered a moderate, evolved into conservative

Reagan: Ran for POTUS 2 or 3 times before winning. (Depending on your source and definition of "running".)
Romney: Is on his 2nd attempt

Reagan: Governor of a liberal state (CA)
Romney: Governor of a liberal state (MA)

Reagan: Preached hope and progress for a beleaguered nation
Romney: Preaching hope and progress for a beleaguered nation

Reagan: Had to pull a nation up by its bootstraps after a failed Jimmy Carter Presidency
Romney: Has the ability to pull a nation up by its bootstraps after a failed Obama (Carter II) Presidency

Reagan: Many felt he could not possibly win in a GE due to moderate positions (some classify Reagan as RINO)
Romney: Many feel he could not possibly win in a GE due to moderate positions(some classify Romney as RINO)

Reagan was not a career politician.
Romney is not a career politician.

They both have a last name that starts with R. Both of their names have the same number of letters. :)

Here are a couple of more references:
1. Washington Post

Machtyn said...

Here you go for Lincoln:

Lincoln: A northerner who carried 0 southern states. (Slave issue)
Romney: A northerner who may not carry many southern states. (Religious issue)

Lincoln: Campaigned and presided over a massively split country.
Romney: Is campaigning among a severely divided country. (Granted, not as serious as it was in 1860.)

Lincoln: Gave a profound "House Divided Speech" and followed that up with the Lincoln-Douglas debate.
Romney: Gave a profound "Faith in America" speech. He followed that up with "An American Century" speech 4 years later.

Lincoln: Was not necessarily favored by most in his party.
Romney: Is not necessarily favored by most in his party.

Both are tall, skinny white men. :)


Anonymous said...

Obama was the next JFK...there were plenty of ways to make that comparison but they were false. Romney is not the next Reagan, Palin is not the next Reagan, Christie is not the next one is the next Reagan, he was one of a kind and his legacy will always be one that we can honor.


Right Wingnut said...

I'll just point out one thing and stop right there. Reagan was loved by the base, Romney is not.

Graham said...

I'm in Nevada. We bought the argument that "any" Republican could beat Harry Reid in 2010.

So the GOP here nominated a bombastic, loud-mouthed extremist who had a record of proudly voting against and criticizing her own party. Because why settle, right?

Because Harry Reid beat Sharron Angle, that's why.

We. Need. ROMNEY.

Anonymous said...

RWN - Reagan was not loved by the base because the base (as it exists today) did not exist in 1980! Reagan is constantly credited with creating the base as it exists today. By building the "Big Tent" mentality within the party he was able to pull in social conservatives, progressives, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, etc. Today many would rather drive people away rather than invite them into the fold. In fact, many would charge that if a person hasn't been 100% pro-life, 100% anti-gay, had any intellectual opinion on the here-to-fore undetermined healthcare debate, and hasn't ever changed their mind on one single solitary issue - then they don't deserve to be called a Republican.

Ohio JOE said...

Machtyn, you make a lot of good points except for this one: "Reagan: Many felt he could not possibly win in a GE due to moderate positions (some classify Reagan as RINO)"

Anonymous said...

Hey Right Wingnut, I find it striking that you're constantly pushing forth the over-dramatized points where you and the Liberal media believe that Romney has changed his mind (you call it flip-flop though I've never seen the flop part) on certain issues - and yet you get all bent out of shape when someone points out similarities between Reagan and Romney. May I remind you:


Pablo said...

"I'm talking about Mitt's electoral history. It's littered with disappointing results."

By littered, of course, you mean that Romney has lost twice. Regardless, by the same logic, you will agree that Rick Perry would be our best chance of beating Obama since he has never lost before? I didn't think so.

Terrye said...

I think Romney is more electable, because he fares so much better with Independents and we can not win an election without them.

But the true believers on the right live in an echo chamber and they hear the people on talk radio and read the people on the rightie blogs and they honestly believe them when they tell them everyone hates Obama and anyone can beat him.

Not so..Obama is certainly vulnerable, but people do not think he is a moron or a drooling idiot and they don't hate him.

Elections take place in the real world, not some echo chamber.

drob said...

Well RW the problem is, Mitt garnered the Reagan Brain Trust last Friday if you didn't read it. I'm just here to remind you. It seems your friend Mark Levin is about the only one of Reagan's team that is holding out. My guess is he's afraid he will loss his niche should Romney be elected, but really the 34 Reaganites supporting Mitt really does mean Mitt must be closer in line with Reagan then any of the others.

Terrye said...


The base today is not the same base..if the real Reagan were alive today and able to speak for himself, a lot of these people would not love him...also Reagan did not have a bunch screaming ninnies on the radio spreading crap about him to that base every day...he did not have to deal with that kind of back stabbing treachery.

Anonymous said...

RW: "I'll just point out one thing and stop right there. Reagan was loved by the base, Romney is not."

All in good time, my friend, all in good time.


Terrye said...


There was a time when a lot of the base did not like Reagan. Conservatives thought he was not conservative enough because of the deals he had made with Democrats in California..he had actually supported some pro life legislation as well...Reagan was an actor however, and most people did have at least a somewhat positive opinion just because of that. I don't think I ever saw Reagan play a heavy.

Terrye said...

I mean Reagan supported pro choice legislation in California..raised taxes too.

Anonymous said...

Or...the support all goes to Perry or Santorum and a whole new Anti-Mitt candidate is born or in Perry's case re-born. If Paul looks like he is going to win Iowa, I honestly don't think people will run to Romney...they'll rally around a true Christian.
I think I'd rather have Perry win Iowa than Santorum...personally.

How in the world did Newt deflate so fast...that was crazy. And yet the entire chattering class and the base of the party refuses to look at Romney's steady support stretched over YEARS, not just WEEKS, and decidedly declare him the weakest frontrunner of all times.

Doesn't it worry any of these people that Mr./Mrs. Pure Candidate "x" may not be able to hold up with support over the long haul? Even if they reach stratospheric poll numbers, they may end up being very weak a month (or in Newts case) a week later. That's why Palin should have gotten in...if the Party absolutely refuses to nominate Romney, at least we would have gone with someone who was a known commodity with a solid base of support.
We were told ad nauseum by all of the conservative media ( at least the biggies) that ALL of Newt's baggage was widely known and accepted, and largely thought to be behind him and not a factor moving forward...I guess not. Isn't it slightly risky to nominate a candidate that has never spent a day in the double digits on any National poll?


Anonymous said...

in this case we have a situation of radicalism we had during the Lincoln years and the Reagan's Era : Gov. Mitt ROmney is the best one to unite the Country again in order to have this as another American Century.

Lionhead said...

@Gordon, Relax my friend, "the one" will appear at the right time. The roller coaster candidates will be winnowed out, one by one. Next one up is Mitt. He will have his day in the sun. Each one must be satisfied they gave it their best effort & had gratification as alpha dog.

Anonymous said...

I like Romney but my gut feeling is Obama will be reelected and neither romney nor any other can beat him, I believe Romney can come closest but in the end,Obama will triumph.It is hard to unseat a sitting president.Gop's best chance is to wait till 2016 after Obama has completely destroyed the country.

Right Wingnut said...

Karl Rove has a plan, folks. And, it does not include Mitt Romney.

Right Wingnut said...

"Jeb Bush is a serious guy, he doesn't play games. If he were going to do this, he would've been focused and intense for many months now," she said. "It wasn't his time. That doesn't mean the door to 2016 is closed, but the door to 2012 is closed. Jeb Bush is not a guy who speaks in code."

Anonymous said...

RW, you do lean towards those conspiracy theories, don't you? Guess we'll see what happens.


Anonymous said...

Romney is the ONLY candidate that is out polling Obama! !!!!! He is therefore our best chance of defeating Obama.

Romney is the candidate we should run against Obama.