Languish.org

I think only the first four are plausible nominees at this point, but I listed the top ten candidates in order of their poll standings according to the RCP average.

Who do you think it will be?

Call me crazy, but I think it will end up being Bush afterall, or some other establishment-ish candidate (Rubio, maybe). All the crazies seem to fly and burn in increasingly quicker cycles, so I believe they won't last in a long primary.

Trump, Carson, Cruz are among the four people you consider the only viable winners? Bleak.

Quote from: celedhring on November 11, 2015, 08:47:52 AM
Call me crazy, but I think it will end up being Bush afterall, or some other establishment-ish candidate (Rubio, maybe). All the crazies seem to fly and burn in increasingly quicker cycles, so I believe they won't last in a long primary.

Trump has been leading or tied for the lead since July, way longer than Cain, Gingrich or Santorum were in the lead in 2012.

Assuming you and the pundits are right and Trump and Carson flame out, it will come down to Cruz and Rubio for sure.

Bush, the GOP establishment can't afford anyone else.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 11, 2015, 08:53:37 AM
Trump has been leading or tied for the lead since July, way longer than Cain, Gingrich or Santorum were in the lead in 2012.

That's true, the length of his lead is more at Giuliani levels.

I think it will be Rubio.

The predictions markets favor Rubio. I do, too. I thought it'd end up being Jeb for awhile but he's proven to be a spectacularly bad campaigner, speaker, and debater at the Presidential level. I liked Bush on a lot of levels before, but I guess he's just not a very good you know, politician, and it's going to be super hard for him now.

538 had a good article explaining how the GOP primaries are structured to heavily favor the blue states. Not only are the blue states weighted earlier in the primaries (which is usually the only time that matters), but they have sort of a "rotten boroughs" system in place because delegates aren't apportioned based on the number of GOP voters but on the congressional seats, so urban congressional districts in NYC send the same number of delegates as a district in rural Texas, despite some of those urban districts may have had 10% of the vote in their last election go to the GOP token candidate.

This makes it very hard for a far-right conservative, and historically a candidate who loses a lot of early primaries tends to lose momentum and that's the end of their candidacy. There's also some arguments being made that Trump and Carson are attracting a lot of attention (and polling numbers) from low-information right-leaning types who may not actually be regular voters and may not show up on election day.

Isn't Super Tuesday basically an SEC primary? Whoever wins that will have a big advantage. A more moderate candidate could win a drawn out campaign, but it would be difficult.  The right wing candidate would have a lot of momentum.

Quote from: Liep on November 11, 2015, 08:48:21 AM
Trump, Carson, Cruz are among the four people you consider the only viable winners? Bleak.

I don't think Carson is that likely. Trump, Cruz or Rubio are much more likely in my view.

I'm practicing writing "President Trump".  :(

Trump for President and Lulz.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 11, 2015, 09:47:23 AM
Isn't Super Tuesday basically an SEC primary?

12 states, 5 of them SEC, and that's counting Texas which is really more Big 12 territory.

The only way Bush will be the nominee is if Rubio is forced out of the race.  I just don't see how Bush can get back in it on merits.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 11, 2015, 09:47:23 AM
Isn't Super Tuesday basically an SEC primary? Whoever wins that will have a big advantage. A more moderate candidate could win a drawn out campaign, but it would be difficult.  The right wing candidate would have a lot of momentum.

Well the first four primaries are Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. Only South Carolina is super receptive to far-right rhetoric. Iowa is a little crazy for both parties, Iowa is a more liberal state but tends to have crazies because the caucus system attracts people who aren't representative of the norm. But New Hampshire and Nevada both have substantially more liberal electorates in the primary than the typical deep red state.

Super Tuesday includes 12 elections, four of them from states that would be considered either blue or purple: Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont and Virginia, and only 5 of the 12 are in "SEC Country."

Looking at 2012, Romney slightly lost Iowa to Santorum (this wasn't known til a few weeks later as it was so close), but under the delegate apportionment rules he got 6 delegates, Santorum got zero, and Ron Paul got 22. The Iowa caucuses are weird that way. Romney decisively won the New Hampshire primary, lost South Carolina, won Florida (a primary not campaigned in since Florida had gone rogue and held its primary earlier than it was allowed to, so it had its delegate count cut in half and no one campaigned there), Romney decisively won Nevada (50% of the vote), demonstrating its moderate tendencies. An establishment candidate will have big advantages in the 4 outright blue/purple states on Super Tuesday. Additionally, mind the congressional delegate allocations: in all those conservative states that hold primaries on ST several have big cities with liberal voters: Georgia, Tennessee, Texas--this means there will be a lot of congressional delegates apportioned to establishment candidates in those states even if some far right candidate wins the at large vote. Plus, Texas and Georgia have both been getting more liberal. Santorum did horrible in Georgia in 2012 (Gingrich won it, who is significantly more moderate than say, Carson, Cruz, or Trump), Romney won Virginia with 60% of the vote, Texas is going to be an unknown. Texas has historically been irrelevant in the primaries because of its nominating convention approach and its late date in the calendar (almost all its delegates went to Romney in 2012 because by the point it selected delegates he had the nomination sewn up.) This year Texas has moved its primary to Super Tuesday, and now it's doing a "two-step" process, where a portion of delegates will be won based on the Super Tuesday primary, but a portion will be won at the later nominating convention. This means if the primaries remain competitive late candidates will have to campaign twice in Texas.

I think the schedule is not a great one if you're a far right outsider, who will need early momentum to stay in.

It's scary.

You know, there really should be an "Other" option due to the possibility of a brokered convention.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 11, 2015, 10:12:12 AMRomney decisively won Nevada (50% of the vote), demonstrating its moderate mormon tendencies.

:)

Probably Rubio, but right now he's just starting to face his first round of media scrutiny muckraking.  How he reacts to that and how it affects his poll numbers should give a clearer picture of his chances.  Cruz will hold on the longest as the conservative alternative to Rubio. 

Voted Rubio and I think he'll come on down the home stretch. He's showing to be very good on talking about policy and his ideas, seems to have a good grasp on the issues, and has done well in all/most debates. Plus he's probably one of the most viable candidates vs Hillary and I think voters will vote for a candidate they feel can win the Presidency.

Hope its Trump.
No idea

Quote from: Savonarola on November 11, 2015, 02:41:20 PM
Probably Rubio, but right now he's just starting to face his first round of media scrutiny muckraking.  How he reacts to that and how it affects his poll numbers should give a clearer picture of his chances.  Cruz will hold on the longest as the conservative alternative to Rubio.

That's the thing, Rubio doesn't need a conservative alternative. His "moderation" mainly consists of not ranting and raving to the press.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 11, 2015, 04:46:51 PM

Quote from: Savonarola on November 11, 2015, 02:41:20 PM
Probably Rubio, but right now he's just starting to face his first round of media scrutiny muckraking.  How he reacts to that and how it affects his poll numbers should give a clearer picture of his chances.  Cruz will hold on the longest as the conservative alternative to Rubio.

That's the thing, Rubio doesn't need a conservative alternative. His "moderation" mainly consists of not ranting and raving to the press.

Which makes him untrustworthy to the base.

Voted for Cruz since I think his chances are being underestimated here.

No idea who it will be at this point.

But I do know that no matter who it is...this will probably be the worst presidential contest in quite some time.

Voted Rubio.  Has the broadest appeal to the various factions of the GOP, as well as a combination of charisma and debating skills that will make him formidable in the general. Youthful, charismatic, and articulate Rubio against an elderly, unlikeable, and generally incoherent Hillary sounds like a good match up.

Cruz is by far the best debater (former national debate champion from Yale) and sharp as a whip, but lacks a certain warmth.  Political debates are ultimately unlike college debates and do not get graded on a point system.

Carson is a very likable, but simply not very strong on the issues.  This isn't as obvious in a crowded field where each candidate doesn't get to speak much, but as the field whittles down it will become more apparent.

Trump mainly appeals to working class democrats that have been pushed out of the party by Obama. I'm uncertain how reliable they will be during the primaries.  I also believe that his support represents a hard ceiling and as the number of candidates decline their votes will coalesce to the anti-Trump.

I don't see any of the other candidates to be in serious contention anymore.  I've been surprised how poorly all the governors performed this year (Bush, Jindal, Walker, Perry, Kasich, and Christie). 

I predict Kasich in the end.

Rubio can really riff. He goes off sometimes like a machine, and some people are accusing him of memorizing stuff to spit later.

Quote from: Hansmeister on November 11, 2015, 08:10:40 PM
Carson is a very likable, but simply not very strong on the issues.

Way to go out on a limb there Square. :lol:

I thought it would be a Clinton vs Bush rematch, but it looks increasingly unlikely.  If I were a voter, I'd vote Bush for sure. 

Jeb! would have made a good candidate 16 years ago. Now he just looks and sounds tired.

Quote from: Berkut on November 11, 2015, 08:32:22 PM
I predict Kasich in the end.

:yeahright: That's quite a bold prediction.

Quote from: DGuller on November 11, 2015, 08:49:59 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 11, 2015, 08:32:22 PM
I predict Kasich in the end.

:yeahright: That's quite a bold prediction.

It's quite unlikely, but if the right wing candidates split the votes and Rubio sinks due to revelations about his financial troubles, Kasich could win by doing well in blue states has Otto as laid out.

I doubt John Kasich could even serve a full term due to health. He might not even realize that yet.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 11, 2015, 09:11:44 PM
I doubt John Kasich could even serve a full term due to health. He might not even realize that yet.

What's wrong with him? :unsure:

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 11, 2015, 09:14:14 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 11, 2015, 09:11:44 PM
I doubt John Kasich could even serve a full term due to health. He might not even realize that yet.

What's wrong with him? :unsure:

Obviously not a doctor.

I think I mentioned last debate that John's movements and gestures look very much like he's got Parkinson's or something similar. He did not have that when he was hosting his TV show.

Rubio would be the smart choice.  If they actually nominate Trump or Carson they might as well not have a general election.  I think Hans has a point that Trump picks up some of the disaffected Democrats, those blessed Blue Dogs that are so beloved here.  I don't think they make up the majority of his base though.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 11, 2015, 11:00:55 PM
I think Hans has a point that Trump picks up some of the disaffected Democrats, those blessed Blue Dogs that are so beloved here.

Either you don't know what a Blue Dog is or you don't know what a working class democrat is.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 11, 2015, 11:00:55 PM
I think Hans has a point that Trump picks up some of the disaffected Democrats, those blessed Blue Dogs that are so beloved here.

LOL no. :wacko:

Anyway it will probably be Rubio. At least that is who the media is attempting to coronate.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 11, 2015, 08:55:24 PM
It's quite unlikely, but if the right wing candidates split the votes and Rubio sinks due to revelations about his financial troubles, Kasich could win by doing well in blue states has Otto as laid out.

I still disagree with the implicit assumption that Rubio is not a right wing candidate.

https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates (https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates)
This site seems to love Cruz the best, but Rubio(along with Rand Paul and Bobby Jindal) is close behind.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/hawkings/cq-vote-studies-cq-vote-watch-rubio-paul-cruz/ (http://blogs.rollcall.com/hawkings/cq-vote-studies-cq-vote-watch-rubio-paul-cruz/)
Rubio votes against Obama's wishes 76% compared to 46% for average Senate Republican. (Cruz was first at 82%)

http://heritageactionscorecard.com/ (http://heritageactionscorecard.com/)
This site gives Rubio a 93%, fifth among Senators.

Yes, one has to be careful to not mistake being slightly less of a raving lunatic with being sane or moderate.  There are no sane or moderate people on the GOP debate stage, none whatsoever.

Quote from: DGuller on November 12, 2015, 01:10:22 AM
Yes, one has to be careful to not mistake being slightly less of a raving lunatic with being sane or moderate.  There are no sane or moderate people on the GOP debate stage, none whatsoever.

This sounds pretty darn objective.

Well, if you look at the chart the Conservative Review site has, they clearly disapprove of Fiorina, Graham, Bush and Christie and have rather mixed views on the two front-runners.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 11, 2015, 11:05:00 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 11, 2015, 11:00:55 PM
I think Hans has a point that Trump picks up some of the disaffected Democrats, those blessed Blue Dogs that are so beloved here.

Either you don't know what a Blue Dog is or you don't know what a working class democrat is.

Or I know what both are, and have no illusions about them.  Read an interesting article about them a month or so back.  Trumps troops are the Wallace voter, the Perot voter, the Buchanan voter.  Working class, white, and distrustful of both government, big business and minorities.  It was these voters that helped Democrats control of congress in 2006 when they became disgusted by the failure in Iraq and then bolted to the Republicans because they feared a Black President was setting up death panels to destroy their guns.  They are the middle American radical, http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/74221/return-middle-american-radical

Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2015, 02:10:23 AM
Or I know what both are, and have no illusions about them.  Read an interesting article about them a month or so back.  Trumps troops are the Wallace voter, the Perot voter, the Buchanan voter.  Working class, white, and distrustful of both government, big business and minorities.  It was these voters that helped Democrats control of congress in 2006 when they became disgusted by the failure in Iraq and then bolted to the Republicans because they feared a Black President was setting up death panels to destroy their guns.  They are the middle American radical, http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/74221/return-middle-american-radical

I didn't see any mention of Blue Dogs in your otherwise interesting article.  And none of the politicians you name are Blue Dogs.  Wallace might be considered a Yellow Dog; perhaps you are confusing the terms.

The guys like Wallace fled the Democratic party more than 40 years ago.  :lol:

Quote from: DGuller on November 12, 2015, 01:10:22 AM
Yes, one has to be careful to not mistake being slightly less of a raving lunatic with being sane or moderate.  There are no sane or moderate people on the GOP debate stage, none whatsoever.

I disagree but none of them are polling well.

Quote from: Monoriu on November 11, 2015, 08:42:30 PM
I thought it would be a Clinton vs Bush rematch, but it looks increasingly unlikely.  If I were a voter, I'd vote Bush for sure. 

So your attitude towards US Presidents is the same as with FIFA World Cups?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 11, 2015, 08:55:24 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 11, 2015, 08:49:59 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 11, 2015, 08:32:22 PM
I predict Kasich in the end.

:yeahright: That's quite a bold prediction.

It's quite unlikely, but if the right wing candidates split the votes and Rubio sinks due to revelations about his financial troubles, Kasich could win by doing well in blue states has Otto as laid out.

I had thought Rubio's financial issues would be more an issue and I thought he had really screwed up there, but it seems he's been addressing them pretty well and they may not be much of a factor.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2015, 01:51:27 AM

Quote from: DGuller on November 12, 2015, 01:10:22 AM
Yes, one has to be careful to not mistake being slightly less of a raving lunatic with being sane or moderate.  There are no sane or moderate people on the GOP debate stage, none whatsoever.

This sounds pretty darn objective.

I don't subscribe to the golden mean fallacy.  There are times when the truth is lopsided, and hedging is playing into the hands of those that don't have truth on their side and being unfair to those that at least try.  Tuesday's debate, just like other debates, have been filled with brazen lies, and policy recommendations based on brazen lies.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2015, 04:09:16 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2015, 02:10:23 AM
Or I know what both are, and have no illusions about them.  Read an interesting article about them a month or so back.  Trumps troops are the Wallace voter, the Perot voter, the Buchanan voter.  Working class, white, and distrustful of both government, big business and minorities.  It was these voters that helped Democrats control of congress in 2006 when they became disgusted by the failure in Iraq and then bolted to the Republicans because they feared a Black President was setting up death panels to destroy their guns.  They are the middle American radical, http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/74221/return-middle-american-radical (http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/74221/return-middle-american-radical)

I didn't see any mention of Blue Dogs in your otherwise interesting article.  And none of the politicians you name are Blue Dogs.  Wallace might be considered a Yellow Dog; perhaps you are confusing the terms.

Okay, lets back up, what do you think a blue dog is?

Quote from: DGuller on November 12, 2015, 01:10:22 AM
Yes, one has to be careful to not mistake being slightly less of a raving lunatic with being sane or moderate.  There are no sane or moderate people on the GOP debate stage, none whatsoever.

Eh, Kasich and Christie are fairly moderate. Bush is fairly moderate. Mind the actual moderate GOP candidates are now required to say certain crazy things as sort of a shibboleth to get elected. Romney had to do the same thing in 2012, he changed his position to be more conservative on a range of issues throughout bout the 2012 Primary season and General election.

The question would be do these people whose pre-Presidential careers show more centrist views behave in a way reflective of what is probably their real positions in the White House, or do they align with the Freedom Caucus and double down on the crazy. I think one reason I disagree with Nate Silver's comments that there's a slight advantage for the GOP this  year is that a lot of independent voters aren't going to be willing to vote for a candidate who "might be secretly moderate", because when someone may or may not be masquerading as a crazy person it makes voting for them very dangerous.

There are so few of them now I can list them all by name:

Brad Ashford
Sanford Bishop
Cheri Bustos
Jim Cooper
Jim Costa
Henry Cuellar
Gwen Graham
Dan Lipinski
Collin Peterson
Loretta Sanchez
Kurt Schrader
David Scott
Kyrsten Sinema
Mike Thompson
Filemon Vela, Jr

But generally they are more conservative Democrats that value bipartisanship. Moderates, but loosely they do not really have a shared specific ideology.

So comparing them to ideologues like Buchanan or outsiders like Perot is pretty daft.

Wallace is something else, I think those guys had long since departed the Democratic party by the early 90s.

Quote from: Hansmeister on November 11, 2015, 08:10:40 PM
Carson is a very likable, but simply not very strong on the issues.

He does have a certain lack of grasp on reality, yes.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTTZP9BUwAAJWLQ.jpg)

Quote
AXELROD:  This is interesting because this, seems to me, is the debate that the Republican Party has to have.  Each election the Republican Party has nominated a center-right kind of establishment Republican at the end of the day, and they've lost the popular vote five out of the last six elections.  You hear conservatives like Ted Cruz say, "We need a real conservative."  Maybe you guys have to run the experiment.

That might be the only option on the table this time.

Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2015, 11:37:08 AM
There are so few of them now I can list them all by name:

Brad Ashford
Sanford Bishop
Cheri Bustos
Jim Cooper
Jim Costa
Henry Cuellar
Gwen Graham
Dan Lipinski
Collin Peterson
Loretta Sanchez
Kurt Schrader
David Scott
Kyrsten Sinema
Mike Thompson
Filemon Vela, Jr

But generally they are more conservative Democrats that value bipartisanship. Moderates, but loosely they do not really have a shared specific ideology.

So comparing them to ideologues like Buchanan or outsiders like Perot is pretty daft.

Wallace is something else, I think those guys had long since departed the Democratic party by the early 90s.

What sort of ideology do you think Buchanan had?  He wasn't conventionally conservative.  I see no reason to believe that the Blue Dogs were "moderates", they fell between the conservative/liberal divide, but that doesn't make them moderate.  The MARs mentioned in the article were the ones who elected these Blue Dogs, and when they freaked out over the Black President, they went heavily Republican.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2015, 12:03:09 PM
What sort of ideology do you think Buchanan had?  He wasn't conventionally conservative.  I see no reason to believe that the Blue Dogs were "moderates", they fell between the conservative/liberal divide, but that doesn't make them moderate.  The MARs mentioned in the article were the ones who elected these Blue Dogs, and when they freaked out over the Black President, they went heavily Republican.

Buchanan was an ideologue, the Blue Dogs were not. But amongst their ranks was where I would find the kind of socially liberal and financially conservative folks who fit my views. So I had a soft spot for them.

Plenty of the Blue Dogs were also primaried by the left as well. Many others were victims of gerrymandering redistricting. They are basically extinct now.

Quote from: DGuller on November 12, 2015, 10:44:08 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2015, 01:51:27 AM

Quote from: DGuller on November 12, 2015, 01:10:22 AM
Yes, one has to be careful to not mistake being slightly less of a raving lunatic with being sane or moderate.  There are no sane or moderate people on the GOP debate stage, none whatsoever.

This sounds pretty darn objective.

I don't subscribe to the golden mean fallacy.  There are times when the truth is lopsided, and hedging is playing into the hands of those that don't have truth on their side and being unfair to those that at least try.  Tuesday's debate, just like other debates, have been filled with brazen lies, and policy recommendations based on brazen lies.

I think DG is right in this case.

It seems to go back and forth - one party gets to be the Party of The Crazy, and the other party gets to seem kind of sane by comparison.

There was a time when every Dem had to climb up on a stage and try to out brazenly lie one another as well - but that isn't that time now, so the Dems get to sit back and look pretty good in comparison...this time.

But it wasn't that long ago when the Dems were competing with each other about how fast they could surrender in Iraq and shut down Gitmo, when they all knew perfectly well that whoever won would do no such thing.

Quote from: DGuller on November 12, 2015, 10:44:08 AM
I don't subscribe to the golden mean fallacy.  There are times when the truth is lopsided, and hedging is playing into the hands of those that don't have truth on their side and being unfair to those that at least try.  Tuesday's debate, just like other debates, have been filled with brazen lies, and policy recommendations based on brazen lies.

You said they were all insane.

Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2015, 12:10:34 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 12, 2015, 12:03:09 PM
What sort of ideology do you think Buchanan had?  He wasn't conventionally conservative.  I see no reason to believe that the Blue Dogs were "moderates", they fell between the conservative/liberal divide, but that doesn't make them moderate.  The MARs mentioned in the article were the ones who elected these Blue Dogs, and when they freaked out over the Black President, they went heavily Republican.

Buchanan was an ideologue, the Blue Dogs were not. But amongst their ranks was where I would find the kind of socially liberal and financially conservative folks who fit my views. So I had a soft spot for them.

Plenty of the Blue Dogs were also primaried by the left as well. Many others were victims of gerrymandering redistricting. They are basically extinct now.

Blue dogs were not known for being particularly socially liberal, they tended to be gun friendly and immigrant unfriendly.  I think it's deep mistake to say they had no ideology.  They were southern in origin and are the successors of the Boll Weevils, Yellow Dogs (from which they got their name), and the Dixiecrat.  I don't know how many were primaried out.  I imagine I can count that number on my hands.  Perhaps you know. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 12, 2015, 03:04:56 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 12, 2015, 10:44:08 AM
I don't subscribe to the golden mean fallacy.  There are times when the truth is lopsided, and hedging is playing into the hands of those that don't have truth on their side and being unfair to those that at least try.  Tuesday's debate, just like other debates, have been filled with brazen lies, and policy recommendations based on brazen lies.

You said they were all insane.

Okay, I concede that some of them could be feigning it to get primary votes.

Quote from: Berkut on November 12, 2015, 01:13:34 PM

It seems to go back and forth - one party gets to be the Party of The Crazy, and the other party gets to seem kind of sane by comparison.

I think they both get that simultaneously.

I literally had to vote against Sheila Jackson-Lee once. It didn't work.  :lol:

I think it's a testament to how easily people can be manipulated by negative advertising that they always tell themselves they are voting for the, "least bad".

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 11, 2015, 10:24:14 AM
You know, there really should be an "Other" option due to the possibility of a brokered convention.

Maybe I should have  :hmm:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/time-for-gop-panic-establishment-worried-carson-and-trump-might-win/2015/11/12/38ea88a6-895b-11e5-be8b-1ae2e4f50f76_story.html

Quote from: Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win...

According to other Republicans, some in the party establishment are so desperate to change the dynamic that they are talking anew about drafting Romney — despite his insistence that he will not run again. Friends have mapped out a strategy for a late entry to pick up delegates and vie for the nomination in a convention fight, according to the Republicans, who were briefed on the talks, though Romney has shown no indication of reviving his interest.

...