The South Carolina primary results have made President Obama a very happy man. He and his campaign high command know the longer the Republican nomination fight drags on, the less time the eventual nominee will have to turn his full attention and resources towards defeating Obama.
Some strategists believe that a prolonged battle strengthens the candidate and prepares that person for the general election. The Hillary/Obama primary fight of 2008 is often cited as an example how a bruising battle helped to hone campaign skills and otherwise prepare the victor.
However, in 2012, I disagree with this line of thinking. What is potentially shaping up to be a tough prolonged battle between Newt and Mitt will result in neither one emerging as a stronger candidate and the reasons why are as follows.
Unlike in 2008, we have a first-term president hovering above the fray with enormous advantages of incumbency and statistical odds of re-election.
As noted in this piece I co-wrote last January discussing Obama’s re-election prospects: “In the last 56 U.S. presidential elections, 31 have involved incumbents; 21 of those candidates have won more than one term. Based on these historical odds, Obama has a better-than-67-percent chance of winning reelection.”
On January 24, when he gives his State of the Union message, Obama will stand above a joint session of Congress looking very presidential on a high prestigious platform. Contrast that scene with Mitt, Newt, and to a lesser extent Rick and Ron, continuing to sling mud at each other while the media chronicles their every attack. (Mitt is supposed to release his tax returns around that time so that might steal some of Obama’s thunder, but not in a positive way.)
Since Obama cannot run on his anemic economic record, he will instead wage a frontal assault against his future opponent. So what could be more perfect than stacks of great material provided by the candidates themselves?
Myra,
Thank you for the GOP establishment POV.
While I happen to agree with you that a protracted GOP primary is less than desirable, I disagree with your attaching such significance to RCP polls. McCain, whom I refer(red) to as McRino, was a WEAK candidate. The only reason he did as well as he did was because of his choice of running mate.
I am registered Independent – very much right leaning in most ways – and I will support the GOP nominee simply because whoever it is WILL BE BETTER THAN Obama. That stated, I do not want “Obama-lite” as the GOP nominee. The presumption of Romney is abhorrent to me. Newt, even with all of his baggage, is preferable, IMO, to Romney. That said, I believe both Newt and Mitt are ‘big-government’ types in general.
Newt has a track record of reforming entitlements and Romney instituting them. That is the deciding factor in my preference between the two.
I’d rather have had Cain, the true outsider, but I’ll settle for the better of what’s left – Santorum. But he doesn’t really seem to be a viable choice at this time. So, Newt + baggage is what I’m left at this point in time.
I said when Gingrich was getting hammered with $10 million in negative ads in Iowa, that he would spring back stronger than ever, and he has. The Not-Romney vote (75% of the primary vote) is now settling onto Newt, and if he performs well in the debates, and he hasn’t had a bad debate yet, he will win Florida with double digits just like South Carolina. Having survived negative ads and October surprise media attacks Newt is now nearly bullet proof, while Romney has yet to face such scrutiny, and will suffer when his political achievements are compared with Obama’s and found to be Identical.
I think Obama and the MSM fear to face Gingrich with TEA Party enthusiasm behind him, and have been working to help Romney secure the nomination, knowing he has no such support.
Obvious Myra your words of wisdom are falling on deaf ears. Isn’t there a biblical quote about “those who will not listen”–reading the litany (with few exceptions) of negative comments on your very realistic assessment, it seems to me that the Tea Party movement started something that will just have to be played out to inevitable defeat by Obama. At that point reasonable dialogue as to what’s POSSIBLE may be possible, and a rational Republican Party emerge.
South Carolina is NOT America and in addition is an open primary state. What happened there can’t possibly be replicated in the U.S.A as a whole. As an independent, if I lived in S.C. even I would have voted for Newt but BECAUSE HE’D BE EASIEST FOR OBAMA TO DEFEAT!
Here in Florida, I re-registered from Reform Party to Republican just so I could vote in the primary–I’ll vote for either Gingrich (because he’s far weaker candidate nationwide than Romney) OR Ron Paul. My vote for Paul would be a positive vote–don’t want him for President but I do think he has a good influence on the Republican Party, especially in terms of his views on foreign policy and defense budgeting. I don’t go along with his totally pacifist views (as unrealistic as those commenting here giving Myra Adamas hell) but I think he influences the Republican Party to be less bellicose, and I agree with that.
Ron Paul wants influence at the national convention and I’m prepared to add my vote to his support to help him have that. But (unless someone shows up in Republican Party or Americans Elect I like better) will vote Obama in 2012.
Just from the title I knew this piece of trash article was written by Myra Adams. That bruising 2008 Democratic primary battle really hurt Obama in the general election?
“Reading Comprehension.”
Google it.
Micky,
The only aspect of Ms. Adams’ piece that is remotely “trashy” concerns the reaction of cretins like you. BTW, have any of you “purists” who support Gingrich considered that his campaign is largely being bankrolled by a family of vampires that sucks the life out of thousands who gamble in their casinos?
The Republican nominee represents those of us who claim to be Republicans.
It is right and proper that this station shall only be granted by the consent of rank-and-file Republicans.
I, for one, am extremely happy that for the very first time in my life, the Primary election in my state might actually mean something.
I will, however, echo your clarion call.
Romney has consistently been rejected by 75% of Republican primary voters. Despite massive advantages, he shows no ability to improve.
He needs to set aside his quixotoc quest and withdraw from the contest.
A protracted primary battle is bad for the Establishment GOP as it will force them to either “Go Conservative” or “Go Home”. Without the protracted battle we rubes can still somewhat believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the GOP is the last best hope for Conservatism. But, it’s futile for Conservatives to continue to send “Election Conservatives” to Washington when they’ll immediately morph into left-of-center legislators once they’re past the danger of the election. We either need a real Conservative or one who’s firmly locked into Conservative Principles because of a long, bitter, ideological primary.
Remember – there’s a reason the GOP always wants to avoid an ideological debate… without the debate they can still claim the “mantle of Reagan” except, of course, when they declare “the Era of Reagan is over”. Electing a Republican is vitally important for Washington power brokers, whether that Republican is a Conservative or to the left of Obama is immaterial to them. It’s up to us to force them to “Go Conservative”.
You must bore yourself Myra.
Take a break and let me write your next column for you. I guarantee I can mouth the elite talking points as well as you can. If I get writer’s block, I’ll just regurgitate yesterday’s article. Nobody will notice.
So the answer to all our woes is to roll over and let the Republican establishment pick our nominee without any feedback from us. They’ve been doing such a fine job for all these years that we are now undergoing a Marxist coup.
Hell, Myra, I’m no longer a free person, am I? I must do what the Marxists tell me to do or I must do what the Republican appeasers tell me to do. I must do what someone else tell me to do.
My personal freedom no longer matters, does it? I am no longer free.
Oh what, was it just the “Republican Establishment” voting in New Hampshire? Don;t talk sh1t.
The GOP primary can only cheer Obama as long as Romney might be selected. The won can say, “See how similar we are! Stick with devil you know.”
“Some strategists believe that a prolonged battle strengthens the candidate and prepares that person for the general election.
However, in 2012, I disagree with this line of thinking. What is potentially shaping up to be a tough prolonged battle between Newt and Mitt will result in neither one emerging as a stronger candidate ”
I’m you do disagree Myra. SC knocked Romney (your candidate) for a loop and promises a very aggressive challenge to him.
I’m sure you do disagree with such a thing. God forbid your candidate ear his place at the top.
So, if the incumbent wins most of the time that means Obama has a high proablility of winning this year. But what are the stats on an incumbent with high unemployment winning? “Anybody but Obama” will win this time because we need jobs. Simple as that.
Yeah, I don’t think that takes into account the catastrophic state some single-termers are in. Carter never had a chance. Bush#1 wasn’t as catastrophic, but he had an admittedly formidable opponent. Also, Truman’s re-election was out of left-field, and stunned everyone. So the raw stats, while daunting, may not be as ominous as they seem.
The only reason Clinton won was because Perot splintered the vote. As long as Ron Paul doesn’t do a Perot this stuttering clusterfark of a miserable failure president will suffer his Jimmy Carter moment in November.
It is beyond my comprehension how anyone could possibly believe Newt Gingrich could defeat Barack Obama in the general election. But then, I guess I should remind myself that half the population of the country is below the median in intelligence. Perhaps that explains it.
It is beyond my comprehension how anyone could possibly believe Barack Obama could defeat ANYBODY in the general election. But then, I guess I should remind myself that half the population of the country is below the median in intelligence. Perhaps that explains it.
One of the things this election cycle is teaching us is just how inaccurate pundits such as Ms. Adams are. Prediction after prediction has fallen by the wayside, smoke rising from the singe marks of reality. Recall in the last cycle nobody gave Obama a chance to beat Clinton, let alone the Republican candidate. Recall how much public opinion had turned against Bush and how the coup de gras for McCain was the economic downturn. And the debates have kept our GOP candidates in the limelight, at least partially combatting Obama’s bully pulpit.
Yes, Obama will look presidential in the State of the Union address, which promises to be filled with his typical pablum, as previewed in Ossawatamie. And the next day the speech will be blasted to bits by Newt and the rest. As long as Obama keeps doing stuff like the XL pipeline, Republicans will have plenty of ammo.
“just how inaccurate pundits such as Ms. Adams are”
only if you look at it conventionally.
If you realize that everything she says is wrong, then you have a very accurate prediction of what will happen.
True, one can take a contrarian approach. Then the pundits would be predictive but still wrong. And perhaps the shortcoming for their “conventional wisdom” isn’t the word “conventional” but rather the word “wisdom.”
Obama isn’t that strong of a candidate; he’s the best orator of his generation but that’s it. His record is awful and the mere fact that he isn’t going to be running on health insurance reform, the stimulus, his proposed cap-and-tax carbon plan, management of the economy, or anything else he’s done the last four years means that he can’t really run on anything. In ’08 he won on hope-and-change and was about average in the debates; all he could do was speak; his advantages in ’08 have disappeared. Heck, even before the financial crisis McCain and Obama were neck and neck in the polls; pretty unimpressive for “the Messiah” to be in a virtual tie with a “Washington Insider” like McCain with an “unelectable” running mate and a Republican President with sub 30% approval ratings destroying the GOP brand, and yet it was happening.
The one Obama and the Democratic machine are afraid of among the GOP candidates is Romney. Whenever Debbie Wasserman-Schulz is questioned during an interview, she immediately goes on attack mode and starts demonizing, villifying, mocking and lying about Romney, even if the question had absolutely nothing to do with Romney. The liberal establishment just today unleashed a million dollar distortion ad aimed at Romney. These actions are very telling.
However, if the bulldog Gingrich wins the GOP nomination, Obama may get slapped a few times during debates with Gingrich, but, in the end, Obama will beat the old, loud, angry, rotund, tired-looking, white man. In other words, Gingrich will win a battle here, a battle there, but Obama and the Democratic Party will win the war. That’ll be tragic.
I tend to agree. I don;t especially like Romney as a candidate, but I don’t like Newt at all. I was impressed how he kicked back at King the other night, but those RCP numbers are disconcerting.Regarding the Hillary v. Sock Puppet primary , yeah they called that pretty well, too, despite what somebody else up there alleged.
This is downright Orwellian.
No, it’s a primary.
“Unlike in 2008, we have a first-term president hovering above the fray with enormous advantages of incumbency and statistical odds of re-election.”
Who says? Jimmy Carter was saying the same thing just before his election day against Ronald Reagan, and we all saw how “well” that turned out for Carter. And Carter’s economy wasn’t that much better than what we have now and unemployment was not nearly as high (especially if you count all of the people who want jobs or are looking for jobs and can’t find them). No, we need a candidate who is NOT ashamed to be a conservative and who is willing to take the fight right to the liberal Democrats. I’m tired of Republicans bringing a knife to a gunfight. It’s time we learn some lessons from the Democrats and show them, and the mainstream media, that they are going to be on trial this election day. And trust me, they have nothing to brag about. We need to stop throwing in the towel before the game has even begun. Stop doing that.
It’s actually Gingrich who is the return of John Mccain. He’s old, physically unappealing, not telegenic, and arguably “RINO” in many ways himself.
Let’s consider Romney’s remaining foes. An former speaker of the house with a troubled past who’s already arousing controversy with his “food stamp president” (yes, WE know what he actually meant, but the demagogues don’t) remark and allegations of open marriage proposals. A committed social conservative who probably can’t win in the general elections. A kooky libertarian who looks like a James Bond villain.
Romney can BEAT Obama. He’s either winning or within striking distance to the incumbent in most H2H polls that I saw. Many non republicans and foregin audience generally acknowledge him as the frontrunner. Ron Paul and Gingrich supporters are risking a sequel to the Christine O’Donnell debacle. The three remaining viable candidates (Ron Paul is a goner) are all arguably “RINOS” who voted for some big government policies.
Do you want to win with style, or just win? Because with the options we have, winning with style is implausible. Romney is a better candidate than some of the “establishment” the tea party couldn’t quite knock off in 08. I can live with Romney as the candidate.
I can live with Romney as well, I just can’t vote for him. . . ever. So what if he beats Obama? How the H would we tell the difference?
Oh, I know how, if Obama wins we might have a chance of a real conservative from the GOP in four more years, if Romney won, we wouldn’t have that chance.
The GOP establishment remain gutless morons who refuses to listen to their core Conservative base who say otherwise with a long, protracted fight; cowards need not be in politics. The GOP establishment needs to be ground to dust. Dust can make cement & is far more helpful than in their current incarnation as warm bodies filling an endless bureaucracy for the feral beast of Big Government.
Sebastian has a way with words. Very direct.
Every time the ideologically committed faithful of a political party launches an insurgency in the middle of an election year, that party is weakened and goes on to lose the general election:
1968: McCarthy insurgency against LBJ/Humphrey. Humphrey lost the general election.
1976: Reagan insurgency against Ford. Ford lost the general.
1980: Kennedy insurgency against Carter. Carter lost the general election.
1992: Buchanan insurgency against Bush 41. Bush 41 lost his bid for re-election.
And these men were incumbent Presidents and Vice Presidents, with all the advantages of incumbency. They still lost, because they had to run as the standard-bearers of deeply fractured parties.
Today, the GOP base has become so obsessed with driving the “RINOs” out of the GOP that they have forgotten that the main goal this year is to defeat Obama, NOT to purify the GOP.
Perhaps they actually believe that purifying the GOP is a first step toward defeating Obama. If so, they don’t know their American history.
They already made this same mistake several times before, with disastrous results:
Harry Reid was even more vulnerable than Obama is now. By all rights he should have been defeated for re-election. And he would have been, if Sue Lowden had been the GOP candidate.
Instead, the GOP base in NV chose Sharron Angle as the GOP candidate, whom Reid was able to paint as a fringe candidate of the extreme right.
The GOP base in NV is to blame for Reid still being Senator. They chose the wrong candidate.
They haven’t learned their lesson yet.
“Point of order”, the “insurgency” began years ago and formally came out in the open three years ago in the form of the TEA party (maybe you’ve heard of it?).
Perhaps your post would make more sense if it pointed out the follow of political parties ignoring those they hope to represent?
Hey look, it’s another “let’s just resign ourselves with Romney and hope for the best” piece! I smell fear. Go pound sand. I’m sticking with my candidate in the primaries until *he* wins or decides to throw in the towel. A January RCP poll shows potential sentiment as they exist in Jan’12, not Nov’12. Ever consider the notion those numbers can and will change over the next 9 and half months?
Take your weak “hey everybody let’s just support the boring RINO” argument offline and give PJM back the space so they post some compelling narrative.
What are the motives of the GOP Establishment? Simple:
It’s about the Senate. It’s about being in charge of the money. It’s not about cutting spending. The Republican establishment is not signed on to the cutting spending business. Some of you ask, “What do you mean, who is this Republican establishment?” Two things. They don’t like conservatives and they’re not really all that concerned about spending. They want to be in charge of it. That’s who they are. And they are not going to be in charge of it if they don’t hold the House and if they don’t pick up the Senate. And that’s what they really want. They’re not and never have been convinced that Obama can be beat. Therefore, Romney is their best chance at the Senate, holding the House, and losing to Obama gracefully. Sad commentary but it’s true. Prove me wrong!
Myra’s solution to her angst & fear is: Vote according to the polls. Vote according to what other people think. That’s certainly injecting a sense of reason and nobility to the whole process. Situations change. Candidates’ positions can change. Turn off yer tv, hun.
Seeing the name of the article, and who wrote it, I knew which direction it would take.
The failure of Republican primary voters to bow their knees to the Establishment-endorsed Romney is, yes, hurting our chances to beat Obama.
Why can’t conservatives just pay their respects to the wisdom of the Establishment like good little minions?
Well, maybe it’s because Romney is no conservative, and because the RNC hates conservatives, and because conservatives don’t want a Republican candidate who told left-wing organizations in Massachusetts that he’s the guy who will represent them within the Republican Party.
Nothing good will happen until the Republican Party becomes an opposition party again — opposed, that is, to big government. If the RNC has its way, it will never happen. Truth is, I think the RNC likes these RINO candidates because they’d rather lose with a moderate than win with a conservative, because it would mean shaking up their power base.
Homey ain’t playin’ that no more.
Let me echo the sentiments expressed by Falco above. While Newt has a lot going for him, the fact that he is accepting millions from a casino magnate says something about his character. While I don’t doubt that he has repented of his past moral failings, funding much of his campaign with “dirty money” indicates that he ascribes to the philosophy that the ends justify the means.