Newt Gingrich, The Ship Be Sinking

The question isn't whether Republicans will vote for Romney over Obama. They will. The question is whether enough of them show up to make a difference in races all down the line. It's bad enough for Republicans if tepid support of Romney means he loses because a lot of Republicans stay home. What's worse is the House, Senate and state elections they lose because those Republicans who stayed home also didn't show up to vote for other candidates.

 

I'd argue those figures are about as relevant to the current GOP nomination landscape as the BCS poll this time in 2008.

 

All they are meant to show is that a lot can change between now and November.

If you look at the republican numbers from four years ago, it shows Giuliani leading.

So when people say Romney is stuck at 25 percent, it's pretty fucking stupid, because the primaries haven't even started yet.

 

The Democratic field in 2008 was genuinely split. For a long time it looked like Clinton was the smart-bet candidate, and Edwards had a real shot (this was, of course, all pre-baby scandal/unveiling of his moral bankruptcy). Obama pulled ahead largely through actual enthusiasm among his organization on the ground. The comparison I'd be curious to see is where Mitt is now and where John Kerry was in 2004. Unfortunately for the Republicans, I think that's the more apt comparison. Crowded field, a bunch of whackjobs, and a guy nobody really likes but who is better than all the alternatives.

At this point, I think there will be a somewhat serious third-party candidate (on the Ralph Nader level of seriousness) when (and it is 'when' at this point) Mitt gets the nomination. I'm just not sure who it'll be. Maybe that libertarian dude who I'd never heard of until the post with the red font. Maybe Ron Paul. Who knows? At this point, nothing would surprise me.

 

2004 is the better comparison.

A president who should lose, but the other party can't come up with any decent candidates to try to beat him.

 

True, but it's not stupid to point out that as other candidates have swung up and down, Romney doesn't move. At all. Good for him is that apparently what support he has is solid. Bad for him is that he can't get ANYBODY else to get enthused about him. Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich and now Ron Paul have all gotten a bounce at some point. But never Romney. I can't remember seeing a primary anything like it, where one guy stays still (at a number above single digits) while so many candidates bob up and down around him.

 

I'm not ready to concede that yet. A month or two ago? Yes. But employment numbers are on the rebound. His approval ratings are moving back up. This entire election is pegged to the economy. As always, really.

 

Ding. Ding. Ding.

Couldn't agree more.

Well, accept I think Obama's done a great job given the circumstances and deserves re-election, but I do think generally speaking, the rising meme that it's 2004 all over again is a good one.

 

I can't totally agree. Kerry got over 59 million votes, which would have beaten Bush in the popular vote handily if it was 2000. In 2004, the Democrats did a heckuva job in getting out the vote (mostly on a Bush sucks platform). But the Repubs did even better.

It wasn't so much that Kerry lost the election as much as Bush won it.

 

2004 came down to 65,000 votes in Ohio. At least it didn't come down to nine votes in D.C. like 2000.

 

I accept that.

 

One very big difference though from 2004 - the economy sucks now. And at best it will be only marginally improved by next November. It is growing again, but very sluggishly, and not nearly fast enough to produce positive results visible to most people.