News Is Mitt Romney the Right Choice for the GOP in 2024?

[lisab]

I think you misunderstand what that graph is telling you and why. During primary season, candidates must pander to the core/base of their party to get votes. This will inevitably hurt them WRT to their potential opponent in November. But after the primary ends, they'll campaign to everyone.

What matters today isn't how Romney fares against Obama, it is how Romney fares against Obama compared to how Santorum fares against Obama. Or better yet, how Romney fares against Santorum WRT independents.

I'm well aware of the shift-to-the-center candidates make as they transition from the primaries to the general election.

The graph was in response to WhoWee's assumption that since far-right voters don't seem to be warming up to Romney, he will get the Independent vote.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm well aware of the shift-to-the-center candidates make as they transition from the primaries to the general election.

The graph was in response to WhoWee's assumption that since far-right voters don't seem to be warming up to Romney, he will get the Independent vote.

Romney is ideally positioned to win (sitting with moderates/independents in the center to the right of President Obama) the Repub race without drifting too far right - but can still count on the votes from the conservative right, and the TEA Party. IMO - Romney is a better candidate in the general than in the primaries.

 

[turbo]

Mitt's got some problems in the General Election. The far-right doesn't like him, and the evangelicals will probably stay home in droves. People who are unemployed or under-employed are going to be really ticked off at him when the Dems start running ads of tearful former employees describing how Mitt dismantled their former employers' companies, stripped all the value out, and put the workers on the street, while raking in hundreds of millions.

I don't think a Mitt candidacy bodes well for the GOP on the whole, because it's not clear that he has the coat-tails to re-elect a GOP majority in the House or to hold onto Senate seats that will be in play this year. We'll see.

 

[WhoWee]

Mitt's got some problems in the General Election. The far-right doesn't like him, and the evangelicals will probably stay home in droves. People who are unemployed or under-employed are going to be really ticked off at him when the Dems start running ads of tearful former employees describing how Mitt dismantled their former employers' companies, stripped all the value out, and put the workers on the street, while raking in hundreds of millions.

I don't think a Mitt candidacy bodes well for the GOP on the whole, because it's not clear that he has the coat-tails to re-elect a GOP majority in the House or to hold onto Senate seats that will be in play this year. We'll see.

The far right really doesn't like President Obama - they will cast their vote against him. Why will the evangelicals stay home in droves? I think unemploey people also know their benefits will run out fairly soon and they are going to need to find a good job - in the private sector - not the President's best argument. Romney isn't the far right candidte that both left and right want - he's the moderate who can win the independent and small business vote - IMO of course.

 

[turbo]

The far right really doesn't like President Obama - they will cast their vote against him. Why will the evangelicals stay home in droves? I think unemploey people also know their benefits will run out fairly soon and they are going to need to find a good job - in the private sector - not the President's best argument. Romney isn't the far right candidte that both left and right want - he's the moderate who can win the independent and small business vote - IMO of course.

The far right is really not going to like Romney, either, once they start digging into RomneyCare and see that Mitt had implemented many of the things that they hate about the ACA, including individual mandates. I find it unlikely that evangelicals will swarm out to the polls to vote for a Mormon, though I could be wrong. At least Obama is a conventional Christian.

As for finding jobs in the private sector, as long as the economy keeps strengthening (no matter how slowly) Obama is going to look better and better to people who need jobs. It won't take too much repetition to make voters remember on whose watch those jobs were destroyed, and how arduous it was to repair the damage and try to right the economy.

BTW, the people of Michigan are not going to be too accepting of Romney after he called the bail-out of the auto industry a mistake. Letting the big auto-makers fail would have been disastrous, not only to the people on the factory floor and to the investors, but to all of the little manufacturers that make parts and supplies that the auto-companies need, and to all their employees and their suppliers. People on the right that claim that Obama "bailed out the UAW" are using a simplistic and wrong-headed argument to slam a president that they simply don't like, with little or no understanding of the economic consequences of doing nothing.

 

[WhoWee]

The far right is really not going to like Romney, either, once they start digging into RomneyCare and see that Mitt had implemented many of the things that they hate about the ACA, including individual mandates. I find it unlikely that evangelicals will swarm out to the polls to vote for a Mormon, though I could be wrong. At least Obama is a conventional Christian.

As for finding jobs in the private sector, as long as the economy keeps strengthening (no matter how slowly) Obama is going to look better and better to people who need jobs. It won't take too much repetition to make voters remember on whose watch those jobs were destroyed, and how arduous it was to repair the damage and try to right the economy.

BTW, the people of Michigan are not going to be too accepting of Romney after he called the bail-out of the auto industry a mistake. Letting the big auto-makers fail would have been disastrous, not only to the people on the factory floor and to the investors, but to all of the little manufacturers that make parts and supplies that the auto-companies need, and to all their employees and their suppliers. People on the right that claim that Obama "bailed out the UAW" are using a simplistic and wrong-headed argument to slam a president that they simply don't like, with little or no understanding of the economic consequences of doing nothing.

Celebrating a statistic such as the number of new unemployment claims dropping by 10,000 to 358,000 (I think-maybe 348,000) for the week is rather absurd when you consider how many people are currently on extended unemployment benefits. My question every time I see this stat is how many more people are left to file?

The right will vote against Obama (regardless of the candidate) and if there's any kind of religious perspective that might effect the race it's the President's recent debacle with the contraceptive mandate - also don't think for a moment the evangelicals will forget the Presidents comments about the US not being a Christian country - but claimed the US is one of the world's largest Muslim countries (or something like that-comment is widely known-I'll source if necessary).

 

[turbo]

I am not advocating Obama vs Romney. I am merely pointing out that Romney (if he is the nominee) will have some rather soft support from members of his own party. If the Republicans all hit the polls simply because they hate Obama, so be it, but that's not a prime motivation to fire up the base and get coat-tails for Romney, if experience is any guide.

 

[WhoWee]

I am not advocating Obama vs Romney. I am merely pointing out that Romney (if he is the nominee) will have some rather soft support from members of his own party. If the Republicans all hit the polls simply because they hate Obama, so be it, but that's not a prime motivation to fire up the base and get coat-tails for Romney, if experience is any guide.

Actually, I think a great many people from the base President Obama is counting on might just stay home if the price of gasoline is above $4.50 per gallon - given he said no to the Canadian pipeline. I also expect to hear some discussions of EPA regulations related to oil refineries and any reduced supplies - again IMO.

 

[mheslep]

Obama's actions in the first few months after he became President are what I look at. I wasn't for Obama, gokul talked me into him. But he did make the right decisions right after becoming president. So I have no regrets.

Obama's actions in the first few months after he became President are what I look at.

Such as? What stands out for you?

 

[Char. Limit]

Actually, I think a great many people from the base President Obama is counting on might just stay home if the price of gasoline is above $4.50 per gallon - given he said no to the Canadian pipeline. I also expect to hear some discussions of EPA regulations related to oil refineries and any reduced supplies - again IMO.

If the price of gasoline is above $4.50? What sort of voodoo magic would cause the gasoline prices to spike 50%?

 

[WhoWee]

If the price of gasoline is above $4.50? What sort of voodoo magic would cause the gasoline prices to spike 50%?

A reduction in refining capacity, increased demand (if the economy is actually improving), ME uncertainty, uncertainty over President Obama's energy policy in general (rejection of Canadian oil for instance)- again IMO.

btw - What was the price of gasoline when President Obama was sworn in - $1.85 or $1.89?

 

[Char. Limit]

A reduction in refining capacity, increased demand (if the economy is actually improving), ME uncertainty, uncertainty over President Obama's energy policy in general (rejection of Canadian oil for instance)- again IMO.

btw - What was the price of gasoline when President Obama was sworn in - $1.85 or $1.89?

I don't know about you, but where I am, it was about 3.00 per gallon. Which it's about now. So good for Obama!

 

[russ_watters]

I'm well aware of the shift-to-the-center candidates make as they transition from the primaries to the general election.

The graph was in response to WhoWee's assumption that since far-right voters don't seem to be warming up to Romney, he will get the Independent vote.

I don't see how that graph addresses that issue at all.

 

[Number Nine]

The right will vote against Obama (regardless of the candidate) and if there's any kind of religious perspective that might effect the race it's the President's recent debacle with the contraceptive mandate - also don't think for a moment the evangelicals will forget the Presidents comments about the US not being a Christian country - but claimed the US is one of the world's largest Muslim countries (or something like that-comment is widely known-I'll source if necessary).

The "contraceptive thing", I think, is more of an issue for religious leaders than religious voters. It seems, for instance, that the majority of catholics support the contraception mandate (e.g. this poll). Others have found similar results.

Please do source that quote, by the way.

EDIT: I found it. He said...

"if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world"

Which is objectively true, so I can't understand why anyone would take issue with it. "Muslim country" in this instance is clearly referring to "a country with Muslims in it". Anyone who attempts to present this as some sort of affront or persecution towards Christianity is distorting the statement so radically that it almost has to be a deliberate, strategic, malicious lie.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I don't know about you, but where I am, it was about 3.00 per gallon. Which it's about now. So good for Obama!

where would that be? According to this website it was around what WhoWee is saying

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

 

[WhoWee]

I don't know about you, but where I am, it was about 3.00 per gallon. Which it's about now. So good for Obama!

It's $3.50 to approaching $4.00 in metro areas this week.

 

[WhoWee]

The "contraceptive thing", I think, is more of an issue for religious leaders than religious voters. It seems, for instance, that the majority of catholics support the contraception mandate (e.g. this poll). Others have found similar results.

Please do source that quote, by the way.

EDIT: I found it. He said...



Which is objectively true, so I can't understand why anyone would take issue with it. "Muslim country" in this instance is clearly referring to "a country with Muslims in it". Anyone who attempts to present this as some sort of affront or persecution towards Christianity is distorting the statement so radically that it almost has to be a deliberate, strategic, malicious lie.

The point is evangelicals are not going to flock to President Obama because (as turbo stated) "At least Obama is a conventional Christian."

 

[Number Nine]

The point is evangelicals are not going to flock to President Obama because (as turbo stated) "At least Obama is a conventional Christian."

Granted, but evangelicals are an overwhelmingly conservative population anyway, so it's not a terribly devastating loss (incidentally, white protestants are about evenly split on the contraceptive issue as well).

 

[WhoWee]

Granted, but evangelicals are an overwhelmingly conservative population anyway, so it's not a terribly devastating loss (incidentally, white protestants are about evenly split on the contraceptive issue as well).

The issue isn't contraception - it's about the Government exerting influence over a church.

The real issue with contraceptives is why should an insurance policy pay for birth control - it will raise all or of premiums. Before anyone says pay now or later - the norm is to add maternity to your coverage before you need it - the premiums increase is by and large an offset against the future claim.

 

[Number Nine]

The issue isn't contraception - it's about the Government exerting influence over a church.

The real issue with contraceptives is why should an insurance policy pay for birth control - it will raise all or of premiums. Before anyone says pay now or later - the norm is to add maternity to your coverage before you need it - the premiums increase is by and large an offset against the future claim.

And as I have pointed out, the majority of catholics and close to half of white protestants support the contraception mandate. This is nothing new; similar laws have been on and off the books for years, it only became controversial when Obama became involved (opposing contraception has always been a losing battle, but the issue happens to fit in well with Obama's supposed "War on Christianity^tm", so religious leaders are willing to oppose it this election season).

The government is not exerting influence over a church, it's exerting influence over an employer. The claim that the church officials oppose the plan because it forced the church to pay for contraception is demonstrably false, since they continued to oppose the plan even when Obama agreed to compromise and exempt the church from the policy. The problem the church has with the policy is the idea that somewhere, someone is using contraception against their wishes.

 

[WhoWee]

And as I have pointed out, the majority of catholics and close to half of white protestants support the contraception mandate. This is nothing new; similar laws have been on and off the books for years, it only became controversial when Obama became involved (opposing contraception has always been a losing battle, but the issue happens to fit in well with Obama's supposed "War on Christianity^tm", so religious leaders are willing to oppose it this election season).

The government is not exerting influence over a church, it's exerting influence over an employer. The claim that the church officials oppose the plan because it forced the church to pay for contraception is demonstrably false, since they continued to oppose the plan even when Obama agreed to compromise and exempt the church from the policy. The problem the church has with the policy is the idea that somewhere, someone is using contraception against their wishes.

On the contraceptive issue, does anyone else find it odd George Stephanopoulas pressed Romney with contraceptive-related questions in a debate a week or two prior to this becoming an issue?

http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...am-romney-steph-obsessed-contraception/300041

"MANCHESTER, NH -- Aides to Gov. Mitt Romney were left shaking their heads late Saturday night after a question directed to Romney by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos on the issue of contraception. After the debate, one top Romney aide suggested Stephanopoulos has a "strange obsession" with contraception and called the query "the oddest question in a debate this year."

In the debate's second segment, Stephanopoulos noted that GOP candidate Rick Santorum has criticized Supreme Court rulings on the issue of privacy. Stephanopoulos turned to Romney and said, "Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?"

Romney looked both amused and perplexed at the same time. "George, this is an unusual topic that you're raising," he said. Romney explained that no state has any intention of banning contraception, but Stephanopoulos pressed the question again. "George, I don't know whether a state has a right to ban contraception," Romney said. "No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do and asking me whether they could do it or not is a kind of silly thing." Later, an exasperated Romney concluded, "Contraception -- it's working just fine. Just leave it alone." The crowd applauded.

Stephanopoulos appeared to be trying to push Romney to make a statement about a 1965 case, Griswold v. Connecticut, that involved an unenforced state law on contraception and was a precursor to Roe v. Wade. Romney would not play along."

 

[lisab]

I don't see how that graph addresses that issue at all.

Then you must have missed the part of the graph that shows Romney losing support of Independents to Obama.

 

[mheslep]

I don't know about you, but where I am, it was about 3.00 per gallon. Which it's about now. So good for Obama!

US avg price was $3.52 at the pump on Monday, making $4.50 a 27% increase. Iranian hot war with Israel is the event most talking about increasing the price, though I expect the recent increase over the last couple months is already partially pricing in that possibility, that and the take away of the KXL pipeline future expectations. So yes prices have about doubled since Obama took office. That's good for him?

 

[russ_watters]

Then you must have missed the part of the graph that shows Romney losing support of Independents to Obama.

No, i certainly didn't. You said:

The graph was in response to WhoWee's assumption that since far-right voters don't seem to be warming up to Romney, he will get the Independent vote.

Since Romney isn't running against Obama, he can't currently get the independent vote from Obama. He can only get the independent vote from Santorum. Your graph doesn't say if he is or isn't getting the independent vote from Santorum.

You are concluding that the graph says that Romney can't win independent votes from Obama, but it doesn't since Romney isn't currently courting Obama-leaning independent voters!

Also, the title of the graph was just plain wrong. It says "As republican primary drags on, independents abandon Romney for Obama". In other words, it is saying that there is a trend of Romney losing more and more independent voters with time. But that isn't true: the graph clearly shows a single point step-change in the polling with the numbers flat since then. But then, this isn't surprising considering the source is a liberal blog site.

 

[lisab]

No, i certainly didn't. You said: Since Romney isn't running against Obama, he can't currently get the independent vote from Obama. He can only get the independent vote from Santorum. Your graph doesn't say if he is or isn't getting the independent vote from Santorum.

You are concluding that the graph says that Romney can't win independent votes from Obama, but it doesn't since Romney isn't currently courting Obama-leaning independent voters!

Hmm. I read that several times...you use too many double-negatives.

The graph is of "Independents". It doesn't say if they excluded Obama-leaning Independents.

For clarification, go back to Whowee's statement. He seemed to be under the impression that since the far-right isn't warming up to Romney, that will help him get the Independent vote. That neglects the obvious -- that Independents have a choice between anyone in the race, not just the GOPers.

 

[SixNein]

US avg price was $3.52 at the pump on Monday, making $4.50 a 27% increase. Iranian hot war with Israel is the event most talking about increasing the price, though I expect the recent increase over the last couple months is already partially pricing in that possibility, that and the take away of the KXL pipeline future expectations. So yes prices have about doubled since Obama took office. That's good for him?

Gas prices dropped due to lower expected demand resulting from the economic meltdown. So in that sense, higher gas prices is good news for Obama.

On the other hand, gas prices will become more and more an issue for the United States and the world. We have almost certainly reached peak production on oil, and it will likely have an effect on our economy and the world economy in general. But I don't know how much any President will be able to do about it.

 

[mheslep]

On the other hand, gas prices will become more and more an issue for the United States and the world. We have almost certainly reached peak production on oil, ...

I seriously doubt that is the case.

December N. Dakota was 534 thousand bbs per day.

But I don't know how much any President will be able to do about it.

He can stop cancelling pipelines for one thing, and otherwise stay out the way. No chance of that though.

 

[SixNein]

I seriously doubt that is the case.

December N. Dakota was 534 thousand bbs per day.
He can stop cancelling pipelines for one thing, and otherwise stay out the way. No chance of that though.

Why would you seriously doubt it?

Before you get too worked up over the 534k figure, you might want too look at consumption rates:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html

 

[mheslep]

Why would you seriously doubt it?

Because the use of newer technology has increased production 500% in the last three years, and that geology exists in many other places.

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/eia_BP_jodi_iea.png

The Oil Drum? A peak oil agenda blog?

Before you get too worked up over the 534k figure, you might want too look at consumption rates:

Which are i) falling, ii) a change of subject from production, iii) is continuing off topic of at least Presidential roles (my fault for pursuing).

 

[SixNein]

Because the use of newer technology has increased production 500% in the last three years, and that geology exists in many other places.

Citigroup made a similar argument:

The belief that global oilproduction has peaked, or is on the cusp of doing so, has underpinned much of crudeoil’s decade-long rally (setting aside the 2008 sell-off).
.
.
That pattern looks set to change mainly because of the new shale oil plays in the US.

https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SEUNHGJJ.pdf

But they are quite optimistic, and the WSJ noted that:

Despite this optimism, it’s a fair bet that not everyone will be convinced. Indeed, there is good reason to be skeptical that the world’s oil production can be forever buoyed by new technology. This is the fact that, year in year out, oil production from existing areas like the North Sea or Alaska declines steadily, meaning the industry must run just to stand still.

http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2012/02/17/citigroup-says-peak-oil-is-dead/

Obviously, the market is still betting on peak.