Voting for President, for the wrong reasons?

[jimmy olsen]

I don't think so.  As I've said before, for me the biggest problem with Romney is I don't think he has the character suitable for any elected office, far less President.  The guy decided to completely overhaul his political identity in 2006 because he saw Giuliani and McCain running and thought there was a gap in the market for a social conservative candidate of the base.  Unfortunately he was a relatively moderate, mildly successful bipartisan Governor of a blue state.  But there was no self-abnegation Romney wouldn't go through, no part of his past he wouldn't renounce and no virtue he wouldn't denounce to win the nomination.  I think he'll lose and deserves to lose, but I've moved from contempt to pity with Romney.  He's shown in the last three weeks what a moderate Republican Governor could do in this race, if he'd had the courage of his convictions these for these last 6 years of running, rather than just these last 6 weeks - or perhaps the convictions in the first place - he'd be running away with this and deservedly so (so, incidentally would Huntsman).

100% wishful thinking on your part.  Huntsman or a Huntsman-like Romney would do nothing for the GOP base, which would stay home.  Obama would win in a landslide.

He only caught up in the polls after he turned hard to the center in the debates.

[derspiess]

They've not minded Mitt's sudden turn to the centre.

It was well-timed, to the point where it seems to have largely gone unnoticed.  Had he gone centrist in the primary he wouldn't have made it through.

Also I'd note that Mitt's biggest critics during the primary were the sort of 'voices of the base', rather than NYT columnist conservatives like Brooks and Douthat.  Since he's become the nominee that's been reversed.  Also in states were the more moderate, non-Tea Party candidate has won the primary generally the Tea Party and base have swung behind them.  I see no reason why that wouldn't happen on a national level with an opponent they dislike as fiercely as Obama.

In addition, of course, a moderate Republican like Mitt in the last few weeks or like Huntsman would be winning independent and centrist votes, maybe dissatisfied Democrats - who knows even some Latinos.

You overestimate the viability of a moderate GOP candidate.  The truth is they don't do too well in the general election these days.  The GOP base is absolutely necessary, and the Democrats and large segments of the media will still paint a moderate GOP candidate as an extreme Republican just by association.  Lose-lose.

You guys seem to think Palin cost McCain the election in 2008.  It may have lowered McCain's standing in the Languish echo-chamber and outside the US, but McCain would have lost by a larger margin had he chosen a moderate candidate.

I said in the primary that if Huntsman were to win it I'd probably vote third party.  And believe me, I'm not the only one.

[Eddie Teach]

They've not minded Mitt's sudden turn to the centre.

It was well-timed, to the point where it seems to have largely gone unnoticed.  Had he gone centrist in the primary he wouldn't have made it through.
<snip>
I said in the primary that if Huntsman were to win it I'd probably vote third party.  And believe me, I'm not the only one.

You've noticed it. Why are you still willing to vote for Romney and not for Huntsman?

[jimmy olsen]

The question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.html

We should vote for Romney so the GOP in the House doesn't hold the economy and the presidency hostage? Fuck that bullshit!

[jimmy olsen]

You overestimate the viability of a moderate GOP candidate.  The truth is they don't do too well in the general election these days.  The GOP base is absolutely necessary, and the Democrats and large segments of the media will still paint a moderate GOP candidate as an extreme Republican just by association.  Lose-lose.

You guys seem to think Palin cost McCain the election in 2008.  It may have lowered McCain's standing in the Languish echo-chamber and outside the US, but McCain would have lost by a larger margin had he chosen a moderate candidate.

He didn't have to chose a moderate running mate, just a competent running mate. The polls certainly indicate that his choosing Palin hurt him significantly once the electorate realized how stupid she is.

[derspiess]

They've not minded Mitt's sudden turn to the centre.

It was well-timed, to the point where it seems to have largely gone unnoticed.  Had he gone centrist in the primary he wouldn't have made it through.
<snip>
I said in the primary that if Huntsman were to win it I'd probably vote third party.  And believe me, I'm not the only one.

You've noticed it. Why are you still willing to vote for Romney and not for Huntsman?

It's not like he's gone that far toward the center.  And thankfully he's no pussy like Huntsman when it comes to confronting Obama.

[Razgovory]

You know he's going to throw you under the bus when he gets into office, right?  A man that so brazenly lies to his base doesn't respect them.

[derspiess]

You overestimate the viability of a moderate GOP candidate.  The truth is they don't do too well in the general election these days.  The GOP base is absolutely necessary, and the Democrats and large segments of the media will still paint a moderate GOP candidate as an extreme Republican just by association.  Lose-lose.

You guys seem to think Palin cost McCain the election in 2008.  It may have lowered McCain's standing in the Languish echo-chamber and outside the US, but McCain would have lost by a larger margin had he chosen a moderate candidate.

He didn't have to chose a moderate running mate, just a competent running mate. The polls certainly indicate that his choosing Palin hurt him significantly once the electorate realized how stupid she is.

Once her character was assassinated, yeah she started dragging him down.  But even with that she was a net positive.  But it was a hopeless cause in any case.

[Phillip V]

You overestimate the viability of a moderate GOP candidate.  The truth is they don't do too well in the general election these days.  The GOP base is absolutely necessary, and the Democrats and large segments of the media will still paint a moderate GOP candidate as an extreme Republican just by association.  Lose-lose.

You guys seem to think Palin cost McCain the election in 2008.  It may have lowered McCain's standing in the Languish echo-chamber and outside the US, but McCain would have lost by a larger margin had he chosen a moderate candidate.

He didn't have to chose a moderate running mate, just a competent running mate. The polls certainly indicate that his choosing Palin hurt him significantly once the electorate realized how stupid she is.

Polls indicate Palin made the race a tie (even small McCain lead), and then the tanking economy in late September / early October caused it to become a Democratic landslide.

[CountDeMoney]

The GOP base is absolutely necessary, and the Democrats and large segments of the media will still paint a moderate GOP candidate as an extreme Republican just by association.  Lose-lose.

As long as even moderate GOP candidates continue to subscribe to the party base's increasingly alienating cro-magnon social positions, then yeah, it will be guilt by association. 
Increasingly repellant GOP social conservatism has consistently proven to be the party's greatest barrier to their progression as a more inclusive party, more so than their pro-wealthy nonsense, which can even be tolerated by the uneducated masses if packaged properly.

The GOP should never gotten in bed with the Megachurch fruitcakes in the 80s.  Now they're attached to the hip.

[Eddie Teach]

It's not like he's gone that far toward the center.  And thankfully he's no pussy like Huntsman when it comes to confronting Obama.

Somehow, I don't think his being "a pussy" would stop you from voting Huntsman in the wild hypothetical where he becomes the Republican candidate.

[derspiess]

You know he's going to throw you under the bus when he gets into office, right?  A man that so brazenly lies to his base doesn't respect them.

One step at a time, brah.

[Eddie Teach]

Polls indicate Palin made the race a tie (even small McCain lead), and then the tanking economy in late September / early October caused it to become a Democratic landslide.

The tanking economy happened to coincide with a couple disastrous primetime interviews Palin had, so it's really hard to say with any certainty.

[CountDeMoney]

And thankfully he's no pussy like Huntsman when it comes to confronting Obama.

LOL, of course.  After all, why should a Democrat choose a Republican ambassador that spoke Chinese as a bipartisan fig leaf?  But no, the only real conservative in the primaries that wasn't clearly insane gets the "pussy" rap.   So typical.  You're the very example of the Teabagging Obama cockblockers.


I bet you had kittens watching Air Force One touch down in New Jersey, too, like your boy Rush did.  CHRISTIE THAT TRAITOR

[derspiess]

As long as even moderate GOP candidates continue to subscribe to the party base's increasingly alienating cro-magnon social positions, then yeah, it will be guilt by association. 
Increasingly repellant GOP social conservatism has consistently proven to be the party's greatest barrier to their progression as a more inclusive party, more so than their pro-wealthy nonsense, which can even be tolerated by the uneducated masses if packaged properly.

The GOP should never gotten in bed with the Megachurch fruitcakes in the 80s.  Now they're attached to the hip.

I would actually agree that the GOP could stand to lighten up on the social side of its platform.  But how many social issues have the actual GOP candidates put out in front?