Skip to comments.Romney Could Win in a Landslide
Posted on 04/26/2012 12:11:24 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: Look, I know. I'm a lone wolf. I'm really a lone wolf on what I'm gonna tell you. Some of you may be where I am, but within the circle of friends that I have (and beyond that people I know) I'm telling you: I'm practically alone on this. I'll illustrate it for you. I had ten friends -- well, five couples -- in for the annual Spring Fling. It's a blast. It's a combination Big Chill weekend plus it's like-minded people. It's some of the finest intellectual stimulation... This what my guests tell me: It's some of the best intellectual stimulation they get all year. They're with friends. They know it's self-contained and private. They're free to say whatever they want to say -- and, unless I talk about it, nobody's gonna hear about it.
Every night at dinner... Well, actually the whole weekend. It's not just at dinner we discuss these things. It's afternoon out by the pool. It's the morning at breakfast. But specifically one night at dinner somebody... And a lot of these people, a lot of the guests are immersed in politics professionally. I'm not. This is a key. I am not a professional politician. I'm a broadcaster. I, as you know, pay very little attention to political consultants. Political consultants, to me, all exist to accomplish one thing, and that is to sell their candidates on the idea that they and they alone are the only ones who can tell the candidate how to go out and win the independents.
Every presidential election is about the independents.
You know the theory: You shore up your base during the primary, and then after you win the nomination and head into the general election, then you move to "the center," where you have to pick up the independents. What this ultimately leads to is an election where, if the consultants have their way, campaigns are tailored to winning a majority of 20% of the voters in the country. Well, I'm sorry, that leaves me cold. I've never understood it. I've never liked it. I've never intellectually understood what the point is in trying to win a majority of 20% of the population who takes pride in telling you they don't think anything. Now, this is not a put-down of you independents.
I don't want you to misunderstand here. Independents and moderates are two different things. But independents, by definition, don't have any opinions. Independents, by definition, are not tied to either ideology. Sorry, I don't believe that. Whether people know it or not, they are either conservative or liberal. They're not squishy sponges. If you're not conservative and you're not liberal, you are just existing. And you are totally unaware of anything other than your own pleasure. And there's nothing wrong with that. But aiming campaigns at them is something that does not interest me. Now, I am totally aware that there are a lot of people whose lives are totally devoted to their sybaritic pursuits.
But to base presidential campaigns on that has always puzzled me and left me cold. Because I believe you want to win elections on the basis of specific policy that gives you a mandate after you win. And I believe that cheerfully articulated conservatism wins every time it's tried. Consultants do not, particularly Republican consultants. (Well, leave out the liberal consultants because they, of course, would never believe in conservatism.) And so the quest every four years is to go out and get the majority of 20% of these people. And people wring their hands over it, and they worry what the independents are gonna do.
And look at the trap that we Republicans or conservatives have allowed some of us to fall into. And that is, "Any criticism of the left, any criticism of a Democrat -- the Democrats or Obama -- will force those independents running right to the Democrats!" So we tie our own hands behind our backs because we think, "These independents, they don't like confrontation! These independents, all they want is conversation. They don't want confrontation! They don't like raised voices. They don't like passion. The independents don't like opinionated people! Oh, no, no, no, no! The independents like squish. They like mush."
I'm sorry; I just don't buy it. But every consultant goes out and tries to get the gig by selling candidates on how he or she or their team knows how to get those independents. I say all this just as an illustration that I am not a professional politics person. I am not a politically scientist. I will admit this may not... Hmm. Let's put this way. When looking at the presidential race, I don't say, "Okay, well, such-and-such has to win Ohio because he's gotta get to 271. If you don't win Ohio, you have to win Florida." I know it's the electoral vote tally and all that stuff matters, but not to me. Not as far as campaigns are concerned, as far as winning the election.
When you start divvying up the country this way, when you tell a candidate, "You're gonna have to win Ohio."
"Okay, what do you do to win Ohio?"
"Well, you go to Ohio and you figure out what Ohioans want to hear."
Sorry, that defeats my purpose of having across-the-board conservatism for everybody, which I believe is wonderful and great. And is the best thing that's ever been devised for human beings as a means of managing their affairs and their lives, securing prosperity and freedom and so forth. Conservatism's it. And I'm all for teaching it to people who don't understand it rather than pandering to people that don't understand it and give 'em what they claim they want. So if Ohioans (just to pick a state) are interested in the mating habits of the Australian Rabbit Bat and that's the thing that's gonna determine their votes?
Then a consultant's gonna come along and give a candidate the best way to go out and get people to care about the mating habits of the Australian Rabbit Bat. Sorry, I'm just not interested in that. And I don't think it works anyway. And even if you do win doing this, it's not real. And, as you know, I live in Realville. I believe in conservatism. I believe in shouting it. I believe in passionately teaching it, passionately explaining it, passionately living it. And I've got the evidence on my side. This country is the evidence. Our founding is the evidence of the greatness of that particular ideology. It triumphs over all others.
Communism, socialism, Marxism, independentism, moderatism, you name it. That is a lengthy (and I apologize for it) setup to the dinner conversation that I wanted to describe to you. The question was asked around the table: "Do you think Romney has a chance to win?" That was the question everybody at the table was asking: "Does Romney have a chance?" I appreciated the question. It's a great question to get discussion going. But, at the same time, I was admittedly a little appalled by it. Can Romney win? The question is, can Obama win? In my world, the question is: "Can Obama win?" But I understand. Obama's the incumbent. He's got a lot of power.
There are a lot of things an incumbent president can do that a challenger can't do. He can forgive mortgages. He can forgive student loans. He can give away the country. I understand that. But conservatism has overcome that stuff when properly articulated, properly utilized in a campaign. Conservatism works pretty much every time it's tried, particularly against this kind of liberalism. Never before in my lifetime have we had the opportunity to draw a greater contrast. Anyway, a couple of the guests are professional politicians. They have been involved in running campaigns, and they started answering the questions in that context.
"Well, you got 235 electoral votes here. You need 270. North Carolina could be big. Ohio, too. Romney's gonna have to..."
All of this consultant esoteric stuff, and I'm just listening to it. And it sounds impressive. And it is. It sounds like the person answering the question is a lifelong expert in this stuff. It's very impressive, if that's your business. And then everybody else took their turn at answering the question, and almost everybody was filled with insecurity, lack of confidence over whether or not Romney could win. And finally somebody said, "Well, Rush, what do you think?" And I went through my little, "Look, I'm not a professional at this. I'm not a political scientist. Counting votes, securing votes, that's not my business. My business is attracting an audience and holding the audience for as long as I can so I can charge confiscatory advertising rates, and that's not the same thing as getting votes.
"That being said, I think Obama's gonna lose in a landslide."
And their mouths fell open! And these are all us, folks.
By the way, don't misunderstand. None of this is criticism. If anything, I'm trying to tell you how out of the mainstream of thought at this particular dinner I was. Nobody else at the table thinks that Romney is gonna win in a landslide or Obama's gonna lose in a landslide. I didn't say it's going to happen. I said it could. The way I look at things, Obama could lose this big, and I went through my riff of the problems the White House is having, the polling data that they have that shows them scared. I illustrated my belief that they're scared by citing examples of what Obama's doing and how he's doing it and where he's going and what he's saying, how he can't run on his record. There's not one positive thing that's happened in this country since he took office that he can cite.
So in a sane world, in a just world, which isn't the one we have. We don't have a just world. We don't have a sane world right now, but if we did, Obama would be laughed out of office. I also said there's a big, big vote out there lying to pollsters. Pollster calls you on the phone, you don't want the pollster to think you're a racist so you tell 'em that you approve of Obama's job performance and you might even vote for him. I said, "I'm not predicting it, but I won't be surprised if this is a blowout." And I cited the 1980 campaign as an example. I said, "Effectively we're going through Jimmy Carter's second term here, only worse." And I'm mentioning this to you only because I believe it. And also I'm mentioning it to you because it explains why I am not wringing my hands over Romney and his flip flops.
Look, at this point it's academic anyway. Romney is the nominee. There's nothing that could be done about that. If you don't like it, if it disappoints you -- and I understand, look, the Tea Party, big 2010 midterms, it would have been great if we'd of had a full-fledged conservative that could have gotten this nomination, but that didn't happen. I told these people I think Romney's gonna end up surprising a lot of them. A lot of them were negative on Romney, his tendency to flip-flop, his baggage of things he said in the past. I said, "I've seen some evidence of Romney running a much, much different campaign than McCain did that will have many more attacks on Obama and his record than McCain ever had the desire or guts to engage in. And I think you all are gonna be surprised," I said.
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, Mitt Romney, with all of his material advantages, has not spent the last four years, six years of his life in seedy, run-down motels only to roll over for Obama after Labor Day. John McCain was content to be nominated. (imitating McCain) "That's right, Limbaugh, that's right. Looks great on the resume, that's right." Romney is determined to be elected. This is not a faux campaign. That is going to make a huge difference.
Now, we've got polling data out here, and I've got it coming up in the audio sound bites. Remember all this war on women stuff. This is just to put these consultants in their place. Remember I mentioned to you that the Republican establishment wanted me to shut up about all this war on women, don't go there. They wanted me not to talk about the social issues, "Don't do it, Rush, please, it's gonna scare the independents." During this whole past six weeks, the war on women and all this phony stuff that the Democrats mounted, Romney is leading huge in independents right now.
So we have an opportunity to dispel a myth. And that is that criticizing Democrats sends independents running right back to Obama. Folks, there is no reason for people -- this is not a standard, normal, run-of-the-mill, every-four-years presidential election. We are losing this country. People are losing their freedom, and they know it. They are losing their opportunity for economic advancement, and they know it. They see the debt piling up, they know what the tax rates for themselves and their kids and their grandkids are gonna be, and they don't like it. This is not an average, run-of-the-mill, every-four-years presidential race. We're losing the country, and people know this, and they don't want to lose the country.
The days where independents would get mad at Republicans for being critical of Obama and run to the Democrats, there's no reason to run to Obama. The only people Obama's gonna have are the people he's already bought and the people he's gonna be able to buy between now and the election. But there's nobody that's gonna run to Barack Obama who's not already there because of policy, because of track record, because of competence, because they want more of it. Not one single person wants any more of this. Not one.
RUSH: Now, let me finish on this Romney stuff for the election before we move on. And understand: This is April 26th, and anything can change. I'm telling you what's in my mind and heart right now, and I will admit to you that a lot of what I'm telling you is something I really hope for. I'm not fooling myself. I'm not in denial. I am not ignoring reality. I am sharing with you where I hope the people of this country are. And I also am sharing with you where I think the people of this country are. But many, many people disagree with me, particularly when I say Obama could lose in a landslide. For Obama to lose in a landslide it means a lot of people are gonna have to vote for Romney.
And there are people who don't see any enthusiasm for Romney.
And I can't deny that.
There are some people that have zilch enthusiasm for Romney. I've always believed here that to win an election, you have to have people voting for you. And I believe that here. I don't think a landslide's gonna happen simply because people are voting against Obama, although in 2010 that's what happened. In the midterm elections, with not a single Republican name on a ballot anywhere, nationally -- of course, there were House races and so forth -- that was an anti-status-quo election. And it was deep, and it was big, and it was down the ballot, and the Democrats lost in excess of 700 seats in the House, in statehouses, all the way down to town councils.
It was big.
And it's worse now than it was then. Now, one of the theories -- ah! One of the FEARS is that there are many millions of conservatives who so distrust Romney that they just won't vote, is that they are unhappy with the way the nomination process ended up and they're not happy with Romney. They're not enthusiastic, and they just might stay home. They just might sit at home and not vote. There are people who fear that that will happen. There are people who think that no matter how bad Obama is, Republicans don't have the answers, either.
Not conservatives don't have the answers; Republicans don't have the answers. And I will concede these hardcore Republican operatives and the consultants and so forth, I do think they're like everybody else in the Beltway: They live in a bubble, and they don't know what's going on outside the Beltway. They think they do, but they don't. And I think too many of them are counting on people like me to gin up enthusiasm for them.
They're counting on Obama to gin up enthusiasm for them rather than doing it themselves. I don't think that they grasp the lack of confidence in them among Tea Party conservatives and Tea Party Republicans. So anything can change between now and then. I just wanted to share with you the dinner party story and what I said. There was one other guest who agreed with me. He thought that Obama was gonna go down big, and I think it's still entirely possible.
If so, sounds like suicide moves to me. Why, when Barack’s doing this was driving voters to him? I haven’t heard folks on Townhall complaining about this yet, but it’s surely only a matter of time (it is by no means in the tank for Romney, he has a lot of enemies there).
Don't sit it out. Vote for Goode and the Constitution party. Send a signal to the Republicans that they aren't the only game in town for conservatives.
I would add incoherent to the go along with ignorant.
Hubby and I just had this same conversation the other day.He was talking about all of the buys he works with in is union shop who are ready to go to DC and remove Obama from office themselves.Many of these guys have ever voted R before but this time they are fed up.You see the factory was given stimulus $$ to build a new dept. then the epa came in and said they couldn’t do that because the hill next to them would trap pollutants too close to residential areas.There is a pottery less than 1/4mi away that uses much worse stuff than the glass factory does.
King Barry loses in a landslide and we get King Barry in a different package.
I don't see Bishop Romney appointing conservatives to the USSC, especially if he'd have to fight to get them through Congress, and I don't believe Bishop Romney will repeal BarryCare if the USSC upholds all or part of it. Even if BarryCare is off the table, no one in their right mind can believe Bishop Romney will do the sort of cutting that needs done or cut the right things when he makes token cuts to try and look like he's doing something. Internationally, he's an even sadder sack of manure.
The only hope is to have a Congress that is as driven and well managed as it was under Newt to counter whoever wins. What are the odds of getting someone like Newt given the fact that the Vichy Republicans worked harder to get rid of Newt than the Fascists themselves did?
Bishop Romney doesn't have what it takes to deal with things finally hitting bottom. We're in free fall now having already gone over the cliff by electing Barry in the first place. All Bishop Romney will be good for is to take the blame for everything so the Fascists can bandy his name around for four or five decades the way they did the name Hoover.
Hubby and I just had this same conversation the other day.He was talking about all of the guys he works with in his union shop who are ready to go to DC and remove Obama from office themselves.Many of these guys have ever voted R before but this time they are fed up.You see the factory was given stimulus $$ to build a new dept. then the epa came in and said they couldn’t do that because the hill next to them would trap pollutants too close to residential areas.There is a pottery less than 1/4mi away that uses much worse stuff than the glass factory does.
This must be garnering him opposition even within the Mormon camp — many there still view it as a “clean living” faith.
How is this going to give any state Romneycare that didn’t already want it? Or how would Newt Gingrich, say, have stopped that from happening?
Rush joined the “in” crowd. He’s for whoever the Vichy anoint with elephant urine and make into the candidate.
It's too far out to have anything other than a gut feel, but I agree with Rush. When people get in the booth and wonder about four more years of this crap, knowing no one will know how they voted, they will vote against the regime.
The left ridiculed Reagan so much that it became very uncool to support him in 1980. But in the booth, people wanted no more of what the peanut had made of the country.
Most incoherent post, I'd agree. I was surprised that Deb understood it enough to call it ignorant.
“Let me know how the election goes, Ill be sitting this one out. I will not vote for mitt the liberal.”
~ ~ ~
I am sitting this one out too, maybe, I’ll go and vote a write-in.
The fact is Romney hasn’t shown yet by his actions that he
is for life. He still is a maximum pro-abort.
Why do people fall for his lies? The times...
But it's possible to live in another bubble; as Rush himself said today, he lives in the second-richest zip code in the US.
"And I cited the 1980 campaign as an example."
That's also problematic, in that he seems to not realize that fully 1/3rd of today's electorate wasn't even born by then. Add in the under-18 1980 (waves hand) population and it's fully half of the electorate.
However, none of that changes 2008 + IN, NC, FL, NV, VA, OH = 271EV as the floor for Mittens, not the ceiling. History backs me up on this as modern-era 271's are rare -- namely, one: Bush v. Gore.
The excess depends on how many flips Mittens can get in the Rust Belt, and can he bring CO & NH back (doesn't need either to win). The latter seems likely.
If Mittens wants to win, all he has to do is Dummy Up. He’s gotten away with it this far already and he can’t defend his record because its indefensible.
There are far too many self described centrists, moderates, and know nothings in the US today. If Romney just keeps playing stupid he’ll win because he can then blame the failure of his own policies, which are virtually identical to Obama’s, on the Other guy whose currently implementing them.
Actually, there is no "middle" since the American electorate can be described as laid out along a bi-modal saddle.
You are either part of the two broad coalition groups ~ variously described as parties, or you are part of a thin fringe out there in the wilderness around those two large groups, or modes!
Barry Goldwater came up with this discovery, but he was not able to exercise it. Instead Lyndon Baines Johnson listened carefully and used it to carve his way to a landslide.
Barry did know what hit him!
Later Richard NIxon used it twice, as did Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The deal is YOU HOLD YOUR BASE while peeling off a coalition partner from the other mode or "Pole".
If you make a dive for the middle, there's nobody there to start with, and your own base will stay home!
It's highly probable that with Romney running against Obama that both of these guys will dive for the middle ~ find nobody there, and then chase everybody home. I expect the fewest number of presidential votes in the last 125 years!
The rest of the race may go along as usual and Republicans should pick up the Senate while keeping the House. But that Presidential thing has to do with who loses the fewest votes from the base, not at all about attracting more votes from the other guy's base.
I think this signals the destruction of the Presidency as a viable office. It's an antiquated 18th century theory no longer of much utility.
Nice to see you back and in fighting form.
First off, Romney will lose so it doesn’t mean much to say how he will push the Left’s agenda.
Romney is already on record for saying he is for keeping the ‘good parts’ of Obamacare. He is not for repealing it.
Newt would from day one defund Obamacare or reallocate whatever funds were there for it and simultaneously put Congress in a vice to repeal the whole thing.
The point is that it’s not so important now which of Obama or Romney will be President, it’s important for conservatives to have a big influence in the US Senate.
Gridlock will be good.
Here here. Thank you!
But I'm guessing you will be whining about not voting for Willard on thread after thread after thread, right? If you are not going to make an impact in this election, why do you feel the need to let everyone know over and over again?