Is Romney’s nomination ‘inevitable’?

The Washington Post ^ | 10/12/2011 | Jennifer Rubin

[delacoert]

If you Google “Romney inevitable” you get 1,980,000 results. The Romney campaign is hoping that the more his inevitability is discussed, the truer it will become. There is something to that. Political players want to be on the winning team. Donors don’t want to waste their money.

It’s heady stuff, I imagine, for the Romney team to read pieces like this by Jonathan Martin: “Hours after Chris Christie signaled he believes Mitt Romney is the Republican party’s inevitable nominee, Romney and the rest of the GOP field went about proving him right. Romney again outclassed the opposition in Tuesday’s Bloomberg/Washington Post debate. Again, none of the other GOP contenders laid a glove on him.”

But the notion that any candidate’s win is “inevitable” months before votes are cast is silly. Romney is without a doubt the front-runner with considerable momentum and weak opposition. But lots can happen, and there are dangers from attaining not only front-runner but media-denominated “inevitable” status.

First and foremost, the expectation is growing that he will or should win Iowa. Sure, he’s not spent much time there, but what if he loses to a revived Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)? That would sap some momentum and wipe out the inevitability chatter quickly.

Second, Romney can overplay the establishment consensus angle. Does getting the backing of former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert really make sense? (His defenders will argue that sometimes smaller fish induce bigger catches.) He should stop before he gets to former Florida governor Charlie Crist and Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), both of whom are reviled by conservatives.

Third, he could take a beating in South Carolina, as John McCain did in 2000, and head downward after that. It’s easier to lose when you aren’t expected to win; it’s another thing to get beaten in

[Forward the Light Brigade]

If Mitt gets the GOP nod—I say bolt to a 3rd Party and Make it win! Trump is looking better and better—a Trump/Palin ticket or a Trump/Cain ticket could do the trick. Lets draft Hillary and make this a four way race! Hillary/Kerry for the far left. Mittens/Huntsman for the Rinos, Obama/Biden for the democrats. Trump/Cain for the Capitalist Party.

[newzjunkey]

Newt has too much baggage.

Over and over this is repeated as indisputable truth while the baggage of Romney stands as no impediment to his nomination. It's irrational.

Once again, Newt owned that debate. Romney spun and preened yet didn't make himself look like a complete idiot. It's all he had to do.

I'd prefer Newt to Romney.

[Huck]

It's a different kind of baggage, at least to me. I'm not nearly as concerned about Newt sitting on a couch with Pelosi as I am about him leaving his cancer stricken wife for a staffer. Newt has a gender gap to begin with; that sort of story is really ugly and won't help.

I just have doubts about Newt and his ego. Honestly, I'm worried about his grandiosity and his judgement. I'm just not sure he is fit for the office.

I hear what you are saying about the debates, but read the transcripts. What he is saying isn't all that earth-shattering. I think he puts on airs of intelligence beyond what is actually there.

[Huck]

Not only do I hate Cain's plan. It seems like dumb strategy. Why tie yourself so completely to such a drastic overhaul, when you as president would have so little power over it anyway? What's the upside?

Meanwhile, not that I'm against reforming our tax code, but I have to question the timing. This upcoming election will be a referendum on Obama. It seems to me that 9-9-9 is an unnecessarily risky gambit at a time when we really need to win.

Why not just run on competence and experience, beat Obama, get the economy going around, THEN make a play for an overhaul of the tax code? It just doesn't make sense to me to throw in a wild card and offer Obama such a lifeline.