Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Charlie Cook: Fading Chances (GOP will lose)
Nationaljournal ^ | cook

Posted on 02/25/2012 8:08:08 AM PST by lilyfreeper

It is becoming quite clear that the conservative base of the Republican Party is driving the car. These voters prefer someone from the pull-no-punches brand of conservatism that created the tea party movement in 2009 and handed Republicans their House majority in 2010. It’s certainly the GOP’s right and choice to do that. The calendar, though, says 2012. The mood of the broader electorate—and, specifically, independents—appears to be very different. If you see any of Obama’s advisers looking bruised from head to toe, it might be from pinching themselves in disbelief.

Simply put, the passion and energy of the Republican Party today may well fail to produce a nominee with a decent chance of winning in November. My assumption was that Romney would be the nominee and would make a good run. Now, I have begun to doubt both propositions. His odds of winning the nomination are growing longer. And even if he does, he has twisted and turned himself into a human pretzel. I’m not sure how electable he is. The alternatives, however, seem even less so.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2012polls; romneysantorumgop
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
Fail
1 posted on 02/25/2012 8:08:13 AM PST by lilyfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper

I just do not get it: Why do all these self-styled experts think that Romney was so much more likely to succeed than Bob Dole or John McCain?


2 posted on 02/25/2012 8:10:17 AM PST by madprof98 ("moritur et ridet" - salvianus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper
My assumption was that Romney would be the nominee and would make a good run.

And what is it that they say about assumptions?

However, Cook's idea of a good run is a GOP nominee who would ensure Obama's re-election.

And if Tea Party values are so politically unmarketable, then how did they trigger such a massive GOP landslide in 2010? Nothing has really changed since as far as Obama's hard-left policies - if anything, they have been shown to be an utter failure - witness all of the green-oriented failures Obama has promoted.

3 posted on 02/25/2012 8:13:57 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper
"And even if he does, he has twisted and turned himself into a human pretzel. I’m not sure how electable he is. The alternatives, however, seem even less so."

I'd agree. With $5 gasoline, 9% unemployed, and 19% underemployed, I don't see how Obama is electable. My conclusion is that nobody can possibly be elected in November.

4 posted on 02/25/2012 8:16:10 AM PST by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper

Charlie Cook is a leftwing pol. He’s part of the MSM machine whose job it is to talk Obama up...and the GOP down.

No surprise.


5 posted on 02/25/2012 8:17:00 AM PST by kjo (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sooth2222
If these were normal times then Obama slaughters whoever is left standing at the end of the Republican primary process.

This election could be more like Bush I's 2nd run where some unknown governor from the relatively unimportant state of Arkansas managed to become president.

Even if Santorum is the Republican candidate, and even if he decides to go whole-hog Moral Majority / Christian Coalition, he might still beat Obama.

6 posted on 02/25/2012 8:20:57 AM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Charlie Cook's assessment of the 2010 election landscape (albeit in 2009 when this was written):

“These numbers would suggest that absent any national tide or trend, Democrats might be expected to lose a dozen or so seats in the House and pick up a seat or two, possibly three, in the Senate. Again, this forecast presumes the lack of any dynamic that would push either party forward or back — essentially an “all politics is local” election.”

In other words, who cares what he thinks at this point? By the time his predictions, or anyone’s for that matter, have any substantive predictive value, it will be more obvious to everyone where things are headed.

7 posted on 02/25/2012 8:21:26 AM PST by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Charlie Cook's assessment of the 2010 election landscape (albeit in 2009 when this was written):

“These numbers would suggest that absent any national tide or trend, Democrats might be expected to lose a dozen or so seats in the House and pick up a seat or two, possibly three, in the Senate. Again, this forecast presumes the lack of any dynamic that would push either party forward or back — essentially an “all politics is local” election.”

In other words, who cares what he thinks at this point? By the time his predictions, or anyones for that matter, have any substantive predictive value, it will be more obvious to everyone where things are headed.

8 posted on 02/25/2012 8:21:48 AM PST by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper

Obama is going to lose on his failed energy policy. All any of the “unelectable” conservatives has to say, is “those are my personal views, and they are enacted into law or policy only if passed on by the House and Senate and found to be Constitutional by the courts. So they are much like President Obama choosing not to wear jewelry for Ramadan.” Meanwhile, Obama spokesmen are ridiculing “drill here , drill now” as fantasy akin to “planting magic beans “ or “sprinkling pixie dust” to solve energy woes. The real fantasy ,however, is that you can leave trillions of dollars of resources in the ground and not blow a hole in the economy. So Obama goes on from windmills, which don’t work; to electric cars, which no one but his cronies wants to buy; to algae. If gasoline goes over $4 and stays there, he’ll lose; if it doesn’t, that will mean that the rising cost has already blown a hole in the economy, and he’ll lose. It’s the same problem as four years ago, and he did “zerO” to fix it. That’s where the election will be framed, and the Obama people know it and are panicked. That’s why they’re out there setting up all the straw men.


9 posted on 02/25/2012 8:22:47 AM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjo
He has predicting the demise of the GOP ever since the day after the 2010 election, yet he fails to point out that reapportionment favors the GOP.
10 posted on 02/25/2012 8:23:21 AM PST by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Why do all these self-styled experts think that Romney was so much more likely to succeed than Bob Dole or John McCain?

He!!, why did they think Dole or McCain were likely to succeed in the first place?

It's scorched earth, their guy or 0bama!

Do you honestly think the establishment cares beyond whats best for the party?

11 posted on 02/25/2012 8:24:37 AM PST by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper

Charley Cook: Republicans will fail [if I do my job right]


12 posted on 02/25/2012 8:26:02 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Same people thought Reagan would lose.


13 posted on 02/25/2012 8:26:42 AM PST by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Why do all these self-styled experts think that Romney was so much more likely to succeed than Bob Dole or John McCain?

He's younger and better-looking, and has a more pleasant manner on TV.

Given the debased state of the current electorate, the experts have a point. If the race really is for the job of National Talk-Show Host, Romney the the most Clintonesque candidate in either party. :)

14 posted on 02/25/2012 8:30:46 AM PST by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
He has predicting the demise of the GOP ever since the day after the 2010 election, yet he fails to point out that reapportionment favors the GOP.

Perhaps because re-apportionment has not favored the GOP anywhere near as much as people had thought. The Dems did a good job in the states they control in squeezing out the most beneficial maps and the Republicans have been stymied in several states where it was thought we would really gain a lot of seats.

Cook and Rothernberg aren't perfect, but they are two of the best in the business. I think Romney could compete and perhaps win, but he isn't a conservative and there is a good reason the GOP base is avoiding him. As we are trying to nominate an actual conservative to represent what is supposed to be a conservative party, I think it is fair to say our chances are sliding due to the relatively poor options we actually had this cycle. I believe Newt gives us our best shot - at least for a hail mary win. Other than that though, there is only Rick left and a Santorum nomination will lead to a landslide GOP defeat of epic proportions. So yeah, I'd say our chances began fading the minute the actual GOP candidate lineup with known - assuming we wanted to nominate an actual conservative anyway.

15 posted on 02/25/2012 8:32:50 AM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper
And the "blame the conservatives" meme begins. Mr. Cook, I would not be surprised if the GOPe would intentionally torpedo the candidacy of a Gingrich or Santorum to maintain a hold on power.
Why do I get the feeling the US is already in a civil war (with the people on one side, and whatever you want to call them on the other), and that sooner or later lead is going to fly?
16 posted on 02/25/2012 8:35:36 AM PST by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

Here’s how we do it:

Win the 2008 McLame states (not that difficult)

Flip Indiana (I’ve got that one covered - it’s a lock)

Flip Ohio and Florida (very possible)

Flip Pennsylvania (difficult?) or flip VA + NC (possible)

I think everyplace else is either committed to Dems or not big enough to be significant.


17 posted on 02/25/2012 8:37:14 AM PST by nascarnation (DEFEAT BARAQ 2012 DEPORT BARAQ 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper

We have $4 per gallon gasoline, fast on its way to $6.50 per gallon.

Examine just WHY gasoline, though plentiful according to stocks on hand and immediately available reserves, shot up to $4/gallon or so in September and October 2008, yet had dropped to less than $2/gallon by the time Obama took the oath of office.

It was speculators then, just as now. People notice immediately if the price of gas is rising, but not so much when it falls. There are competing groups of speculators, those who will bid up the futures delivery of gasoline (or other commodities, for that matter), thereby panicking others to get in on the high and rising market, then commencing a dump just before the general perception comes to people that are otherwise sensible about such matters, realize the quoted price is unsustainably high, and take a loss while liquidating. Menwhile, the bottom feeders that had engineered the price spike in the first place are scrounging around and snapping up all these discounted sales for which the previous holder had taken such a drubbing, and deliver on their contracts at the discounted price, but with still a healthy margin for themselves.

One of the participants in this scheme in 2008 was the George Soros financial octopus, initiating internal trades among their several dummy companies, and therefore creating the panic atmosphere that led to the sharp price rise. Since by this time they were playing with other peoples’ money, they could well afford to dump AFTER the election of 2008, and still come out ahead financially, meanwhile having created an issue which put their figurehead in office.

But this time, there are several other participants in the price run-up, very likely a consortium of banks and large holding companies, manipulating the price ahead of time, with the goal of providing relatively LOW prices BEFORE the 2012 election, thereby “proving” that the Obama plan for economic recovery is working.

Yet nobody will call shullbit on this tactic.


18 posted on 02/25/2012 8:37:19 AM PST by alloysteel (Are Democrats truly "better angels"? They are lousy stewards for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper
Hey Charlie; you are sounding like someone 'whistling past the graveyard.'
19 posted on 02/25/2012 8:40:10 AM PST by harpu ( "...it's better to be hated for who you are than loved for someone you're not!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pieceofthepuzzle

You might follow that with the reality that the Republicans gained, what, 40+ seats in the House and 5-6 in the Senate? LOL, I forget now what the raw numbers were, but it would be useful to cite them here.


20 posted on 02/25/2012 8:44:48 AM PST by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

Bingo!


21 posted on 02/25/2012 8:46:45 AM PST by CainConservative (Santorum/Huck 2012 w/ Newt, Cain, Palin, Bach, Parker, Watts, Duncan, & Petraeus in the Cabinet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
Cook and Rothernberg aren't perfect, but they are two of the best in the business. I think Romney could compete and perhaps win, but he isn't a conservative and there is a good reason the GOP base is avoiding him. As we are trying to nominate an actual conservative to represent what is supposed to be a conservative party, I think it is fair to say our chances are sliding due to the relatively poor options we actually had this cycle. I believe Newt gives us our best shot - at least for a hail mary win. Other than that though, there is only Rick left and a Santorum nomination will lead to a landslide GOP defeat of epic proportions. So yeah, I'd say our chances began fading the minute the actual GOP candidate lineup with known - assuming we wanted to nominate an actual conservative anyway.

I dare you to put that comment on your homepage so that on November 7, 2012 all and one can compare your prognostication on the presidential campaign against actual reality.

22 posted on 02/25/2012 8:48:02 AM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper

Charlie, The only one fading in this race is the obama led socialist democrat party. Take your head out of your rear end and pay attention son. The american people have caught on to who this fraud is despite the coverup by the socialist frauds infested in the MSM. Obama is one and done because even he can’t create enough voter fraud from illegals, acorn and the multitude of ignorant people still backing is sorry rear end to counter the american people.


23 posted on 02/25/2012 8:50:55 AM PST by spawn44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
Funny how every single comment I've ever seen from you over the past two years has somehow projected a GOP loss...
24 posted on 02/25/2012 8:52:07 AM PST by Qbert ("The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry" - William F. Buckley, Jr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper

Charlie Cook, totally misread and mispredicted the Republican massive landslide in 1994. Enough said. Mr. Cook, fine fellow that he is lives in Never/Never land, and....is far from the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Mitt Romney will yield the same negative result as John McCain brought forth in 2008. Pubbies, better come up with a true blue conservative this time. Why? The free nation we live in is at stake!!! A vote for Romney is a wasted vote!!!


25 posted on 02/25/2012 8:53:16 AM PST by JLAGRAYFOX (My only objective is defeat and destroy POTUS Obama & his Democrat Party, politically!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjo
Seems like they said Reagan would never get elected either because they thought he was too conservative.

Look how that turned out.

These guys are delusional.

26 posted on 02/25/2012 8:56:43 AM PST by Northern Yankee (Where Liberty dwells, there is my Country. - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper
Prior to founding his newsletter in 1984, Cook worked on Capitol Hill for then-Senator J. Bennett Johnston, Jr., a Democrat from Shreveport who served from 1972-1997. Cook also worked for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Policy Committee. In addition, he worked as a pollster and campaign consultant and on the staff of BUILD-PAC, the political action committee of the trade association, the National Association of Home Builders.[4]

The above from wikipedia - so just why should I care what this man - Cook - who hates Republicans - thinks? Thinks about anything?

27 posted on 02/25/2012 9:05:00 AM PST by GOPJ (GAS WAS $1.85 per gallon on the day Obama was Inaugurated! - - freeper Gaffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

The guy’s a democrat - he want to undermine us at every turn... Read my above comment on Cook.


28 posted on 02/25/2012 9:06:06 AM PST by GOPJ (GAS WAS $1.85 per gallon on the day Obama was Inaugurated! - - freeper Gaffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

You are absolutely right on all counts. Cook is good at what he does, Santorum is a train wreck and Newt is the only candidate that can beat Obama.


29 posted on 02/25/2012 9:10:15 AM PST by BlueCat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sooth2222

“With $5 gasoline, 9% unemployed, and 19% underemployed, I don’t see how Obama is electable”

He will be “electable” because Obama is emerging from “the starting gate” with a good 43-46% of the voting public already “in his pocket”.

This 46% simply -doesn’t care- about “employment” or even “underemployment” because they are either
1. on entitlements or
2. on unemployment (which may keep getting “extended” for years to come), or
3. on welfare.
The “economic rules” that -you- live by, simply don’t apply to them.

With 46% already on his side, all Obama needs is a moderate portion of the so-called “independents” to put him over the top. And a large chunk of those wishy-washy independents are going to get scared off by the social conservatism of someone like Rick Santorum. If the candidate is Romney, expect an attack on his religious beliefs unparalleled in American elective politics.

Did you see the recent poll out of Virginia? Where no less than 51% of those polled preferred Obama to the Republican candidate? In Virginia, of all places? (Aside: in 2008, Obama won VA with 53% of the votes cast.)

This IS NOT going to be an easy election for Republicans, at least on the presidential level. It’s going to be bitter, and it’s going to “turn racial”.

The ‘rats know how to fight, and they will, with any sense of principles or fairness be damned.
It’s because the Republicans won’t “return that fire” with more of the same, that they are going to be in danger of losing....


30 posted on 02/25/2012 9:13:54 AM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

“Why do all these self-styled experts think that Romney was so much more likely to succeed than Bob Dole or John McCain?”

These wannabe experts often get their cues from professional election consultants- they think the perfect candidate is an empty suit that offends no one and stands for nothing, one that they can build a “narrative” on and keep “on message”. It is also the same sort of candidate that keeps professional consultants election consultants employed and incidentally provides work for tons of so-called experts.


31 posted on 02/25/2012 9:16:00 AM PST by GenXteacher (He that hath no stomach for this fight, let him depart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation
"Flip Pennsylvania (difficult?)..."

Not difficult:

Rasmussen Reports 2/24/12: "Forty-five percent (45%) of Pennsylvania voters approve of how Obama is doing his job. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove. These figures include 24% who Strongly Approve and 40% who Strongly Disapprove. This is a slightly more negative view of the president’s job performance than is found nationally."

Zero is in some serious doo doo in the Keystone State. Possible he can convince voters that $5 gasoline, food price inflation and 9% unemployment is a good thing. Even if they were dumb enough to vote for him last time, I doubt they'll all believe it this time. Selling "Hope n' Change" is going to be more difficult now that he's been Captain of the ship for four years, and none of the changes have been good changes.

32 posted on 02/25/2012 9:21:55 AM PST by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

I just do not get it: Why do all these self-styled experts think that Romney was so much more likely to succeed than Bob Dole or John McCain?

They know that Romney will fail. That’s why they’re supporting him for the nomination.


33 posted on 02/25/2012 9:38:46 AM PST by birdsman (NAAWP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper

Where these analysts fail big time is they perceive 0bama as a left of center moderate rather than the far left radical commie the rest of us sees. It doesn’t really matter who the GOP nominates. The media will say he is too conservative and the voters will consider him a reasonable alternative to the crazy man in the White House.


34 posted on 02/25/2012 9:50:46 AM PST by Truth is a Weapon (Truth, it hurts so good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
Funny how every single comment I've ever seen from you over the past two years has somehow projected a GOP loss...

I've been here long over 2 years, and many of my comments are directed at close races and attempt to discuss realistic scenarios rather than a bunch of silly wishful thinking.

There is no doubt my faith in what passes as the American public these days is very low and can lead to excess pessimism at times - but, like it or not, generally my reality based predictions are accurate and on the mark.

I have little confidence in this crop of candidates. I see Romney as a mushy RINO chameleon who could perhaps win precisely because he stands for nothing. I see Newt as a shot in the dark, but someone who could truly change the dynamic and win the election in a sort of a hail mary play, and Santorum as an afterthought who is only relevant now because he is the only non-Romney still around who hasn't been completely savaged. Rick didn't run a brilliant campaign, it's just no one paid any attention to him because he'd make such a poor general election candidate that no one paid attention. Santorum would lose in the same landslide everyone assumed he would 6 months ago when he was at 1% in the polls and people figured he was in the race for lack of anything better to do or to try to score a better TV contract.

35 posted on 02/25/2012 9:53:31 AM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide
With 46% already on his side, all Obama needs is a moderate portion of the so-called “independents” to put him over the top. And a large chunk of those wishy-washy independents are going to get scared off by the social conservatism of someone like Rick Santorum.

Yup. That is exactly the likely scenario. Roughly 45% of the voters are going to vote for Hussein no matter what. He needs 5%+1 more and he wins his second term. No matter what Rick does to try to change the subject, the election will turn on social policy because he is not deft enough, nor do I believe in his heart really wants, to change the subject.

Instead of gas prices, debt, failed stimulus, etc, we'd end up talking about rubbers, porn, whether women should work or have lots of babies at home, etc. No matter how right Santorum may or may not be on those issues, they are giant losers amongst moderates and all the new, younger, fiscal conservatives who understand we need to do something about the debt, the insane spending levels, etc, but want absolutely nothing to do with someone preaching at them about birth control.

36 posted on 02/25/2012 10:02:43 AM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SC_Pete

I’m tired of hearing this stupid argument. Romney, Santorum are no Reagan. Santorum is more like ‘I’m not a witch’ Tea Party darling Christine O’Donnell .


37 posted on 02/25/2012 10:04:05 AM PST by lilyfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper

All these experts have already forgotten the disrespect Obama showed to Catholics and Christians with the HHS mandate. he literally stared right into Timothy Cardinal Dolan’s eyes and lied to him.

None of these scenarios of the 2012 election have included the fallout over this serious mistake by Obama. I know a lot of good Catholics who managed somehow to convince themselves that it was OK to vote for Obama because he and the Democrats favor the poor people, and anyway, they always vote for Democrats. When I spoke to them in 2008 several admitted some reservations about it. I believe Obama will lose minimally 2-4% of his previous supporters over that issue alone. It ought to be 10%, but there you have it. Just my humble opinion. It will be a silent vote of protest. People do not like to have liberal bullies pushing them around, and this adnimistration’s disrespect for religious convictions is over the top.


38 posted on 02/25/2012 10:09:58 AM PST by Gumdrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Northern Yankee

Just saw Santorum on C-Span...addressing a group last night in Michigan. His speech lasted about forty minutes...when he finished the crowd was in tears.

As Santorum said as the end of the speech...if the reporters present actually wrote what he said...people would know a bit of truth about this campaign...”but, they won’t”.

Yes, they won’t.


39 posted on 02/25/2012 10:17:45 AM PST by kjo (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

Agree 100%. The numbers do not lie....

A sure winning strategery!


40 posted on 02/25/2012 10:18:55 AM PST by Shady (The undeniable truth of the Obama Administration...The numbers do not lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper

Let’s see......$5.00 a gal. for gas (and a refusal to drill)unemployment at at least 10%, attacks on the 2nd ammendment, attacks on religious groups to pay for abortions and contraception, attacks on the constitution (ie Ginsburg and Obama comments that the constitution is out of date, OBAMACARE (the majority of Americans want it repealed). The bottom line the pubbies have the issues and if we lose with either Romney Gingrich or Santorum then shame on us.


41 posted on 02/25/2012 10:25:01 AM PST by kenmcg (How)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tench_Coxe

“And the “blame the conservatives” meme begins.”

Yes, there is never a “blame the moderates” meme.

If a moderate loses it’s because he’s a weak candidate, the odds were against him, the other guy did a better job campaigning, etc.

If a conservative loses it’s because they (and we) are EEEEEEVIL, RAAAAACIST, STUUUUUUPID!

I didn’t read the whole Cook piece, but he seems to have made HIMSELF into a big pretzel trying to figure out how to make ANY kind of a case that Mitt Romney would be a strong candidate.

Romney has won 1 election and was so unpopular after his 1 term he didn’t even run for re-election. He struggles to get over 30% of primary voters. The more people know him the more they say “meh”. He can’t even make a good case for HIMSELF, never mind convince anyone to agree with him.

I’m not saying Romney wouldn’t beat Obama, but as for him being a much stronger candidate than any one else, no. Romney is a LOUSY politician, I can’t imagine why he ever wanted to be one.


42 posted on 02/25/2012 10:28:19 AM PST by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kenmcg

I’m voting for ABO (ANYBODY BUT OBAMA). Period.

Obama’s kept us in confusion and chaos for going on 4 years now. With me; it ends in 2012. - It is the most evil, most corrupt administration ever in this country.

Democrats laugh as Republicans scurry around in confusion.


43 posted on 02/25/2012 10:34:00 AM PST by Twinkie (John 3:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper

I wasn’t comparing Santorum to Reagan. I agree there is no comparison. My point was that the same people have a problem with conservative candidates. They fear true conservatives—and they love beatable moderates like Dole and McCain.


44 posted on 02/25/2012 11:26:28 AM PST by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper

i thought the article would be about congress.
gop picks up 12+ seats
the senate is in the bag
and well the prez??
too soon to tell.
90% unemployment
$5 gas
1.5 trillion deficits
mid east in chaos
europe in flames (just wait)
and i would not be betting on b.o.


45 posted on 02/25/2012 11:27:51 AM PST by genghis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sooth2222

Great data, appreciate it.

The MSM may be trying to sell Baraq as invincible, but a state by state analysis says we can flush him.


46 posted on 02/25/2012 12:39:10 PM PST by nascarnation (DEFEAT BARAQ 2012 DEPORT BARAQ 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kjo

Dear Mr. Put-Your-Finger-in-the-Wind Pollster:

True conservatives are fighting for a lot more than your silly polls. We fight because the future of our country is at stake. Win or lose, we follow God’s will, not the whims of your polls.

We oppose socialism not because we are Republicans and Obama is a socialist. We oppose socialism because it is evil for our souls and bad for the country. Ronald Reagan didn’t care about polls during his “wilderness years” and nor should conservatives today. We fight for truth and justice not because we want to please the liberal media. We fight for truth and justice for their own sake.


47 posted on 02/25/2012 1:37:11 PM PST by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper

If the conservatives would just sit down and shut up and let the liberal elitists in the GOP drive the car... What would happen? We saw what happens.

The GOP becomes and permanent minority and loses races for President. They have no agenda for reform; they just react and beg to tweak socialist and globalist thrusts made by the Leftists. For example, Romneycare.

If we are going to lose anyway, I would rather we lose and kick and shove (figuatively speaking) liberals along the way which is better than losing to the most liberal of the liberals running for office without any challenge to unconstitutional centralized power, globalism, political correctness and corruption at all.

I want liberals exposed, hurting and mad after every election. Only 8% of the nation’s voters are liberals! How dare them take over both parties and expect the rest of America to shut up about it.


48 posted on 02/25/2012 4:28:28 PM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lilyfreeper
It is becoming quite clear that the conservative base of the Republican Party is driving the car.

Well, you pretty much have to be a grown-up to see over the dash, so....

49 posted on 02/25/2012 9:14:04 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
I just do not get it: Why do all these self-styled experts think that Romney was so much more likely to succeed than Bob Dole or John McCain?

Gerry Ford couldn't even pull it off and he was the INCUMBENT!

50 posted on 02/25/2012 9:15:50 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson