John Stoehr, editor of the New Haven Advocate and a lecturer at Yale, has a tribune on how Mitt Romney may possibly lead the GOP out of its loony right wilderness and back to something approaching “moderation.” He thus begins
Much has been said about the Southernisation of the Republican Party, but little about the way Mitt Romney, if he secured the Grand Old Party’s presidential nomination, has a chance to wrest control from the party’s fringe and restore it to political moderation. Sure, the GOP is justly viewed as the party of big business, and one of the richest men ever to run for the White House won’t change that. But of all the primary candidates, none is more likely to put the brakes on the troubling trend of Southernisation.
Shoehr, who’s a liberal, is perfectly happy to see the GOP crack up. He’s just calling it the way he sees it. I don’t know if he’s right but I hope he is, not that I would want to see Romney win—God forbid—but because America needs a party of the right that is moderate and normal, not crazy and out on the fringe. If the center of gravity in the GOP could once again be people in the mold of Bush Sr, Reagan, Ford, and (gasp) Nixon, I would breathe a sigh of relief (I never thought I’d say such a thing…).
On this subject, TNR has a piece by William Galston, a Clintonite centrist, warning Democrats that Romney will be a stronger general election candidate than they may think. He’s probably right. And another piece in TNR, by Alec MacGillis, one of its senior editors, examines what voters really think about Romney’s wealth. Answer: the majority don’t begrudge him for it. No doubt right as well.
So if Romney is the GOP nominee—which is more than likely—it will be a close race in the fall. Anyone else Obama will blow away. As for what the Romney-hating Tea Partiers will do: they’ll vote for Mitt as one. Of course they will. And they know they will.
“The selection of a Republican candidate for president of that globalized and encompassing empire is – I say this seriously – the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been heard.”
Fidel Castro
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/25/us-usa-campaign-castro-idUSTRE80O2PE20120125
If you are a liberal who wants America to be governed by a liberal party, why would you care about what happens to the GOP? Or to put it another way, why does America supposedly need a “party of the right that is moderate and normal, not crazy and out on the fringe”?
Of course I reject your description of the modern GOP as “crazy and out on the fringe”, or why you think lumping those recent GOP Presidents together as moderates makes sense — most of the left in this country hated Nixon when he was elected and later regularly described Reagan as “crazy”. In fact, the current GOP and its candidates trip over themselves to claim Reagan’s mantle because he is such a beloved figure on the Right today.
Arun,
I probably talk to more conservatives in a week than you have in your entire lifetime. The beltway GOP-E elite insiders you cite are not the movement conservatives who actually vote in large numbers. It doesn’t seem you have your ear to the ground either. If you actually talked to regular conservatives & followed some of the major conservative sites that have 200,000+ registered members and thousands of daily posts, like Free Republic and Lucianne.com you would see that there is almost no support for Romney in the primaries, and many, if not most, say they will never vote for Romney if he is the candidate in November. Of course they will never vote for Obama.
I think Romney is a weak candidate, and a gaffe machine who’s giving Joe Biden a run for his money.
Nobody likes Mitt Romney. Not even his dog, Seamus Romney, who now has his own website and Facebook page, http://www.DogsAgainstRomney.com
Dogs Against Romney has gone viral worldwide, and has been featured on every TV talk show in America.
In the end, it just might not matter at all who the candidate is. Just as, IMO, no Republican could have beaten any Democrat, either Hillary or Obama, in 2008, the reverse may very likely be true in 2012. Obama is so unpopular, and the economy so bad, any GOP candidate would beat Obama. I call it an Elmer Fudd kind if year.
A look at the latest Gallup Poll on Obama’s state by state favorability does not auger well for the Dems in November. Even if Obama won all the States in which he has a high favorable rating which are very few indeed, he would lose in a massive landslide. Not to even mention the GOP most likely taking the Senate, by the sheer number of Dem seats up for grabs alone, and it will be worse in ’14. And keeping the House.
GALLUP POLL & MAP HERE:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gallup-state-numbers-predict-huge-obama-loss/352881
@CCinna: I understand that as a very conservative person, you find Romney repugnant (almost as repugnant as you find Obama). But I fear these feelings are clouding your judgement. The article from the Washington Examiner has little merit in terms of predicting the outcome of a presidential election, since it literally doesn’t even consider a Republican opponent. It is effectively an assessment of Obama running against himself (Obama 2011 vs Obama 2010).
There is also a problem, I think, with looking at what people say in blogs and in their efforts to galvanize opposition to Romney’s candidacy and what they’ll actually do in the voting booth in November. While I can accept that far right Republicans may shun Romney and choose instead not to vote, I can’t understand why you think that would be the norm. I think it much more likely (as Arun has written) that faced with the choice, people who are conservative will pick their “lesser of two evils” and vote for Romney.
Finally, I would challenge your comparison of 2008 and 2012. While Obama’s approval ratings aren’t good (somewhere between 44 and 50%), they are significantly higher than George W. Bush’s were. By 2008, Bush had become what may well have been the most unpopular president in the history of the country. Under those circumstances, it was of course impossible for any standard bearer from his party to win. Obama simply doesn’t face that level of unhappiness (at least as far as we can see from any approval figures).
@dojero: Very good. I wholeheartedly agree. And you’re spot on in re to the absurd spin the Washington Examiner gives to the Gallup numbers. I addressed some of these matters in my January 3rd post on the Iowa caucuses.
@dojero
I would suggest you check the results for NYS In Presudential elections since 1968.
Since 1968, Democrats have lost NY in presidential elections four times.
Richard Nixon won NY and the Presidency in 1968 with 32 states, an election in which 3rd party candidate George Wallace carried 5 normally Democrat Southern states, and Texas was still a blue state.
Richard Nixon won reelection in a 49 State blowout against George McGovern in 1972.
Ronald Reagan won NY against incumbent Jimmy Carter in a 44 state landslide
in 1980 & against Walter Mondale in a 49 state blowout in 1984.
The Gallup map today, granted, almost a year away, look eerily similar to ’72, ’80, and ’84.
@CCinna: I don’t know where you find your information. In 1968,, according to this site (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1968), Richard Nixon lost New York to Hubert Humphrey.
If you’re comparing Obama to George McGovern, then we don’t have much to talk about…If you’re comparing Mitt Romney to Ronald Reagan, then we don’t have much to talk about.
I suppose that I could point out that from 1932 through 1948, Democratic candidates won every presidential election. I wouldn’t think that tells us much about 2012, though.
Right. The election results 30-40 years ago are irrelevant as a guide for what could happen this year.
@dojero,
I don’t find either Romney or Obama “repugnant”. Nothing personal at all. My objection to Obama is based on his policies and the ideology behind such policies. Mitt is in a whole different category, but still believes that more government action and intrusion into people’s lives is acceptable.
My perspective on this election is far from clouded. Im just looking at the numbers, and numbers never lie.
To see the divide within the Democrat Party along race and class lines, one only has to look to the 2007 primary results between Hillary & Obama. Under Obama, that divide has widened, and he has lost much of the support if everyday working Anericans. The NYT, & Washington Post, both very liberal, have called Obama the most polarizing POTUS in American history-far more polarizing than Bush or Nixon.
There is a divide on the Right between the GOP establishment and everyday average Americans who hold conservative values, especially on fiscal
issues, foreign policy issues, & the role of government.
There are intense discussions going on at the websites I cited.
The questions that are raised are much deeper than which party wins the WH in November. Many feel that a neutered Obama, with a GOP House & Senate would be far better than a GOP- lite POTUS, with no strong conservative core or backing.
As I’ve stated before, Romney’s liabilities as a standard bearer for conservatives, and never forget that 40% of all Americans self- identify as “conservative”, are many, but that doesn’t mean Romney couldn’t or wouldn’t win.
Many would prefer Newt, and would pay good money to watch Newt debate Obama in the series of seven 3 hour debates with no journalist questions, just a timekeeper, that Newt has proposed, in the style of the famous Lincoln–Douglas Debates of 1858. (Lincoln won the debates, but lost the election). Newt had even stated Obama could bring his TelePrompTer (TOTUS).
I suggest you read “Ameritopia” by Mark Levin. It opened its first week on the market as #1 on the NYT best seller list & every other list. Again #1 this week.
Mark Levin’s other book, “Liberty and Tyranny” is a terrific book as well. Exploring the two diametrically opposed visions for the America.
I don’t have a crystal ball, but I do have my ear the ground here in NYC, and far out in Suffolk County in this the supposedly bluest of states. The noise is not rumbling up from the palaces on Park Avenue or 5th Avenue, or from Goldman Sachs or Wall Street, where both Obama & Romney have their biggest donors, it is coming from the everyday working and out of work guys and gals, and they are not happy.
FWIW the single biggest donor to both Obama and Romney is Goldman Sachs. That should tell you a lot.
@CCinna: “Numbers never lie” is simply not true. I’m sure that you know well that statistics can be used in lots of ways to make many false statements and draw many false conclusions.
As for the “divide along race and class lines” in the Democratic Party, I don’t understand your use of the 2007 primaries to make the point. Obama faces no opposition in his own party. Are you trying to say that you believe that white working class Democrats voted for Clinton in the 2007 primaries and that they will vote for the Republican candidate in 2012?
The claim you make that the New York Times called Obama the most polarizing president in history is simply false. Please understand that there is a huge difference between a writer stating such a thing and the newspaper stating that same thing. While there may have been a pundit or commentator in the Times who wrote that (I didn’t see it, but suppose it is possible), I am confident that the Times has never made this editorial statement on behalf of its editorial board. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would appreciate a citation. I also doubt that this is true for the Washington Post, but I don’t know, as I don’t read that paper.
Incidentally, the claim that the New York Times and Washington Post are “very liberal” belies only your very conservative beliefs. For people on the left, the Times is a centrist publication that doesn’t reflect “very liberal” positions. As always, the perspective changes depending on where the beholder sits.
Living abroad, I can’t claim to have much knowledge of how things feel in New York in general or in Suffolk County in particular. What seems clear from all the polling I can gather is that Obama will carry the state of New York quite handily (as does every Democratic candidate in modern history). So if you’re hearing rumblings of something else, I would urge you not to pay too much attention…I don’t think they’ll amount to much come election time.
@dojero: Well said. CCinna is a hoot saying that she’s “just looking at the numbers, and numbers never lie”, when she informed me last September 6th, when I mentioned Sarah Palin’s poor poll numbers, that “Polls are for strippers and cross country skiers”. She is typical of those who dismiss polls when they don’t like the numbers but then fetishize them when these tell them what they want to hear, or can interpret them to support their position. As for having one’s “ear to the ground”, don’t we all? (those of us who closely follow politics at least) It is a conceit to a priori assume that one’s ear is somehow more finely tuned than that of others. When it comes to public opinion, the only ear that interests me are polls. On this – and I’m repeating myself here – see my post from January 3rd http://arunwithaview.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/comment-on-eve-of-iowa-caucuses/
@Arun: I agree absolutely with you about the “ear to the ground” claims of anyone based on their own personal experiences. While I freely admit not to having a feeling about the way things are in New York (or anywhere else in the US, I’d also say without hesitation that my feelings about Italy are not a valid barometer for what’s happening here. In December of 2010, I thought that Berlusconi was going to be forced out and that there would be elections no later than March, 2011. My view was based on my “ear to the ground” feelings. Of course, Berlusconi made it almost another year and there’s no sign even now of elections being called.
My mistake then was relying on the papers I choose to read (La Republicca and La Stampa) and talking to my friends (all of whom wanted Berlusconi out). If wishes only made it so, we’d all be able to trust our feelings.
RCP is a great site for poll information precisely because it averages across a wide array of polls. Polls, too, are slanted in lots of ways and I think it is only through averaging that we can get a realistic picture. In the case of New York, though, there isn’t a poll anywhere that would suggest that Obama is in trouble in the state. If CCinna believes that she can glean rumblings to the contrary in New York, then I suspect there is wishful thinking poisoning her perspective.
The numbers I was referring to are not poll numbers, but election results. Hillary overwhelmingly carried to white working class vote in the 2007 primaries. The 2010 midterms showed the same pattern of voting, with the Democrat party losing much of the white working class vote.
As to having one’s ear to the ground, I am not referring to pundits, polls, but to talking face to face everyday with everyday working people, many of whom normally vote Democrat but no longer support Obama. Many others are conservatives who are looking for real change. They will never support Obama, and expressed anger at the GOP-E that seems to be forcing a candidate on them that 1. They feel is not conservative, but is Obama-lite, and 2. cannot be able to beat Obama in November.
I’m hearing the same thing in Manhattan that I am hearing in our small town on the East End if LI. I’m hearing it from cab drivers, small business owners, shop clerks, restaurant workers, construction people, and here in NYC from doctors, dentists, lawyers, and medical personel whom I deal with professionally on a daily basis. There are lots if dissatisfied people out there.
@CCinna: Since you seem to feel that white working class voters are a crucial segment of the electorate, it might behoove you to take a look at the way votes break down in presidential elections. Roper has an excellent look at these numbers on an election by election basis (start here: http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/presidential/presidential_election_2008.html#.TyueFRBVGTH)
What you’ll find is that no Democratic Party candidate in the past 25 years (at least) has won the majority of white voters. That includes Obama in 2008, when John McCain took 55% of the white vote (http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html#.TyuedxBVGTE). Obama, however, won more than 60% of every other racial category.
I’m not sure how to define “working class”. The Roper site breaks things down by income levels. In 2008, 31% of the voters in the US had incomes between $15,000 and $50,000. I’m guessing that would cover the “working class”. Obama took about 56-57% of that group. You may think that Romney can do better than McCain with this group. I haven’t formed an opinion on that question yet.
You seem to believe that people who are “normally” Democrats and who are unhappy with Obama will not vote for him. I don’t know why you think so. As Arun has said so often here, unhappy Democrats don’t really consider Romney to be much of a choice. I believe they’ll vote for Obama (unhappily) rather than vote for the Republican candidate.
I believe that Obama is at risk, but not because of party loyalty issues. I think the most important demographic in the Roper basket is the segment they refer to as Political Philosophy. They break it down in three categories, of which the largest is the group called Moderate, with 44% of the voters falling there. In 2008, Obama carried 60% of that group. I think that he would do that again against any Republican candidate except Mitt Romney. I think there’s a chance that Romney could do much better than McCain did with that group. And therein lies the threat to Obama’s re-election.
@dojero
My mistake; I stand corrected about NYS in 1968.
I find your analysis of Roper interesting.
I’m not at all implying that the base of the Democrat Party would vote for any Republican. They’ll probably all vote for Obama. But, Obama has lost ground with many parts of the traditional Democrat coalition: among younger voters, among Jewish voters, and among white working class voters.
An important element in an elections is enthusiasm. Obama had it in 2007, it’s gone.
I don’t think Romney is the strongest candidate because the base just doesn’t like him. So called “moderates” who one might think would find Romney appealing, just don’t. He has been a flip-flopper and comes off as an opportunist who will take any position to get elected. Part of what killed John Kerry- that and being an out of touch gazillionaire with 5 homes. And a
Massachussetts liberal.
Looking over past election results, especially the internals of polls and demographics can be a helpful tool in understanding the American electorate on a Congressional district by district basis, where Electoral College votes are and elections are won or lost.
If you look at the Election map since 2000, you will see the country has gotten redder and redder. The Democrat bastions are more limited than ever. Traditional Dem states like NY have lost Congressional seats, therefore Electiral votes, and totally red states like Texas have gained seats.
I find Michael Barone’s Almanac of American Politics, to be an invaluable source for voting data breakdowns.
Everyone uses it, right and left.
This is just a hobby for me, my profession is in the legal/museum/auction field.
It’s going to be an interesting year.
@CCinna: Fair enough. I don’t disagree about the current lack of enthusiasm for Obama among many of his supporters who were so excited by his candidacy in 2008. But at the moment, I don’t think that negative is enough to sink Obama. In head to head polling, RCP still has him ahead of Romney by almost 2 percent, and the campaign hasn’t even begun. Given the power of the presidency, the expectation would be that the incumbent will grow in strength as the election nears.
Yesterday’s jobs report and the glowing media coverage it garnered will also make Romney’s job more difficult. If the economy is perceived by the electorate as recovering and gaining strength, it’s hard to imagine the incumbent losing.
To be sure, I would expect Romney to fare better than McCain, who was undeniably cursed by the Bush administration heritage. But unless Romney can come up with something startling, or unless the economy begins to sink again, I think Obama has the clear edge.
I normally don’t make general predictions about the election until the summer but I’m cautiously optimistic for Obama’s chances. The current RCP average has his job approval rating at 46.3%, which is the same as a month ago. And in view of the latest jobless figures and other news on the state of the economy, there is no reason for this number to drop. If the economy continues to trend upward, so will his approval ratings, and particularly when the campaign begins in earnest, voters start focusing on the election, and in view of the manifest weaknesses of the Republican candidate, whether it’s Romney or someone else. If Obama’s approval ratings increase by three or four points, he will be the favorite in November. The one thing that could mess it up is a foreign event, e.g. an Israeli attack on Iran or a dramatic worsening of the crisis in the Eurozone, with the inevitable tsunami effects on the world economy. Let’s hope not.
I wouldn’t even place bets on the French election, just a few months away. Predicting the winner in the primaries, let alone the general in a crapshoot at best.
Obama will have a much more difficult time this timr around. Not suggesting that previous Obama supporters will vote GOP, but many have already gone over to Ron Paul. With great dissatisfaction & low level of enthusiasm, they might just stay home.
Obama has no coattail effect because Obama’s base is not the traditional base of the Democrat party which is historically single white women,
Blacks,
union workers, gov’t workers and
Lower income Hispanics.
In 2008, Obama won with a coalition of Blacks
youths, higher income people, and upper middle class suburban voters.
That coalition seems to has lost steam, and without the traditional Democrat base, cannot win.
A good example is Illiinois, where Obama won big, but had little down ballot effect.
Romney has a similar problem. Romney’s base is not the traditional base of GOP which is upper income white males,
Married women, suburban voters in the South, rural voters in the Mountain West,
Evangelicals and Mormons.
As the great Yogi Berra once said “it ain’t over ’til it’s over”, and this has only begun.
@CCinna: You’re absolutely right, it ain’t over till it’s over
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-holds-edge-over-romney-in-general-election-matchup-poll-finds/2012/02/05/gIQA5JX0sQ_story.html
http://media.talkingpointsmemo.com/slideshow/on-the-comeback-charting-obamas-2011
In other news, Obama is losing the Catholic vote, now polling 60-40 against, a major part of his winning coalition in 2008.
Arun, I gave you a heads up on this story a month ago…. don’t doubt me ;•}
Stealth candidate to nowhere! Right here in NY at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show at Madison Square Garden, press from all over
the world reported on DOGS AGAINST ROMNEY protest.
Interesting to watch how this is spreading and going mainstream. Masterful use of the media. BOL!
This from the NYT:
Story From Romney’s Past Prompts Protest at Dog Show
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/story-from-romneys-past-prompts-protest-at-dog-show/
Mitt Romney may have a new constituency to worry about: dogs and dog lovers.
The group “Dogs Against Romney” held a protest outside the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show in New York on Tuesday afternoon to bring attention to the story of how 25 years ago, Mr. Romney drove from Boston to Canada on vacation with his dog, Seamus, in a carrier strapped to the roof of the family station wagon — a tale that political commentators and opponents have seized on it as a window into Mr. Romney’s character.
With almost 2,500 followers on Twitter and 25,000 likes on Facebook, “Dogs Against Romney” mostly has fun with the issue, posting cute pictures online of dogs wearing bandanas that say “I Ride Inside.” Members call themselves a “super pack,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/politics/economic-gains-give-lift-to-obama-in-poll.html?