Is Mitt Romney wrapping up the nomination?

[jaxx]

Posted at 11:04 AM ET, 11/21/2011
Is Mitt Romney wrapping up the nomination?
By Jonathan Bernstein

Don’t look now, but it’s becoming very clear that Mitt Romney is starting to solidify his grip on the Republican nomination. The latest signs of this came over the weekend, in the form of two new endorsements from New Hampshire, Senator Kelly Ayotte and Representative Charles Bass. Bass constitutes the 43rd member of Congress to endorse Romney — Rick Perry is next with 14, and current polling co-leader Newt Gingrich has only 6, four of them from Georgia.

<..> The political science literature tells us that high-profile endorsements are important indicators for at least two reasons. One is that these endorsements probably have a direct effect, as primary voters with little way of choosing from among similar-sounding candidates may turn to opinion leaders to sort things out. The other, and perhaps more important, factor is that high-profile endorsements are the most visible ways of seeing the co-ordination of party actors as they compete over the nomination and eventually settle on a candidate. That is, if politicians and party-aligned interest group leaders are willing to place their name with a candidate, it probably means that others within the party — ctivists, donors, campaign and governing professionals, and other, lesser-known politicians — are moving towards that candidate as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum..._blog.html

Interesting. Mittens may lose Iowa but he hasn't done much with the fundies anyway......they prefer their candidates know nothing but abortion junk.

[jaxx]

Now he sucks up to the 3 stooges and the pubs who worship the military.......

Romney calls on Obama to cut medical care for the poor, not defense
By Shira Schoenberg
| Globe Correspondent

November 21, 2011

NASHUA, N.H. - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney today called on President Obama to take money from Medicaid, not defense, to compensate for the failure of a congressional supercommittee.

<..> Romney called on Obama to introduce legislation to rescind the defense cuts and take the money from elsewhere in the budget – potentially from Medicaid, the state-federal health care program for the poor. “Return that program to the states,” Romney said. By telling states that their Medicaid funding would grow at the rate of the consumer price index plus 1 percent, Romney said, “You more than compensate for the $600 billion that you restored to the defense budget.”

<..> “The president has shown only a willingness to cut military spending,” Romney said. “His answer to a government that’s too big is to keep cutting the military. And this at a time when the world has become more dangerous. It is unacceptable.”

Cutting the military, Romney said, is “like putting a gun to your own head.”

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/201...story.html

He may be sewing it up with the pubs, but this is the stuff that will drive the Indies to PBO in a big hurry. My gawd, the lack of compassion for the people is mind boggling.

[sandnsea]

I think folks would be surprised at how many people, including indies and even some Democrats, would prefer defense over spending for the poor. Mind you these are the same people who say the US shouldn't be the world's police and spend money at home and not overseas - but somehow when election time rolls around, the hoopla over cutting the military is a bandwagon they will jump on every time.

[jaxx]

I think we need a strong military. And I also think that there are many things within that military that are unnecessary and over priced, so that cuts can be done without creating a problem. Most of the repubs whining comes from them trying to protect their districts or states who might lose in a cut, it has nothing to do with actual defense of the country. They'd rather try to fund an defunct plane than extend food stamps.....there is something so inherently wrong with that scenario.

The people's needs should come first. It's pretty simple, but unpopular.

[Still a Democrat]

I hope not, because I think he's the strongest repug candidate.

[Arkana]

(11-21-2011 12:07 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  I hope not, because I think he's the strongest repug candidate.

Eh, that's not saying much. It's like being the only human on a planet populated by golden retrievers--yes, you're the smartest one there, but the competition licks its own genitals.

[Andy823]

(11-21-2011 03:55 PM)Arkana Wrote:  

(11-21-2011 12:07 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  I hope not, because I think he's the strongest repug candidate.

Eh, that's not saying much. It's like being the only human on a planet populated by golden retrievers--yes, you're the smartest one there, but the competition licks its own genitals.

Now that was a good one!

I have to agree when you come out on top with so many "idiots" running, it's not that great. Romney is another McCain, the sacrificial lamb who doesn't stand a chance of winning, but since the powers that me would rather wait till 2016, he is their sacrifice this time around.

With Romney as the candidate, they better be prepared for some losses in congress also, because a lot of tea party types won't vote for him, and the tea party may even come up with their own candidate, which would take them both down. Romney has a ton of stuff out their to use against him, and I am sure the presidents people are already stock piling all those sound bites, video clips, and flop flops as we speak!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

I agree that Romney is likely to wind up being the GOP's "sacrificial lamb" in 2012 and believe that President Obama will be re-elected. I keep wondering who could possibly be "waiting in the wings" for 2016 on the GOP side?

[Ikonoklast]

It was always his to lose with that feeble bunch of also-rans, never-wases, nutcases, oddballs, and religiously insane candidates as opponents.

Then we can focus in on Mittens...who is an also-ran, nutcase, never-was, nutcase, oddball, religiously insane candidate for president.

[Drunken Irishman]

The problem with Romney is that most of his support is soft. It's not much different than '08, when he was leading in most polls either nationally, or in the more important states.

When your support is soft, it suggests people are only behind you because you're the front-runner - not because they're inspired to join your campaign. To be sure, Romney does have some faithful troops who'll go to war for him, but not nearly at the level of other names.

Soft support also means you can lose it at a drop of the hat. Romney found that out the hard way in '08. He led in almost every poll in Iowa from December '06 to November '07. He looked very much like the Republican nominee this time four years ago.

But then he lost Iowa and, suddenly, that support nationally collapsed and he struggled the remainder of the primary period.

If he loses Iowa again in '12, it's possible the exact same scenario plays out. He's helped by the fact he should win NH (something he failed to do in '08), but a prolonged primary makes him less and less inevitable, especially if someone like Newt Gingrich can withstand the pressures of being the leading candidate.

So what helps Romney right now is that he's got a lot of support from Republicans who are just ready to move on to the general election. If he wins Iowa, he'll probably cruise to the nomination. Unfortunately, just like '08, Iowa is becoming less and less a slam dunk for the Romney campaign and now, he trails, in an average of all Iowa polls, to Gingrich. It's slim, but it only has to be a .1% loss to Gingrich to put his campaign on the ropes.

It's interesting because I think a lot of people are dismissing Gingrich because they believe he'll fade like all the other front-runners. Romney has certainly been the more durable candidate, consistently polling either one or two nationally for a couple years, but Gingrich is in a good spot. For starters, his momentum is happening at the time you want it to happen. We're less than two months away from the Iowa Caucus, and maybe even less than a month away if they're moved up to offset Nevada. The surge very well could carry him to victory in Iowa - as something similar happened to Huckabee in '08. Huckabee rarely registered in any Iowa polls and suddenly surged late to steal that state.

Where Gingrich is different from Huckabee and other Republicans is that he's a seasoned campaigner. There certainly are potential gaffes and he's got a lot of chinks in his armor, but he's been around the block enough times to know what you can and cannot do in an election season. His pitfalls aren't going to be as dramatic as a guy like Cain's or Perry's, who both buckled under intense vetting by the media. Gingrich has already been vetted many times over. He was the face of the Republican Party for much of the 90s - he's been able to handle the media scrutiny.

Gingrich also has more mass appeal than a guy like Huckabee, who caught the fundamentalist wave in Iowa and rode it to some victories in the south. Gingrich will play well in the south, but also play well in other areas of the country because I think he has the ability to connect, at least more than Romney, with the conservative base.

Now this isn't a prediction, but more a look at what would probably happen if the elections were held in the next few days/weeks.

Polls indicate Gingrich could take Iowa. The second he takes Iowa, he becomes a strong front-runner, similar to Kerry in '04. Romney will then HAVE to win NH. There is no ifs ands or buts about it. If Romney loses Iowa, New Hampshire becomes his firewall.

Fortunately, Romney is winning in NH by a sizable margin. Unfortunately, as a guy like Dean saw in '04, that lead can quickly evaporate the second you lose Iowa. Even Obama in '08 saw a huge surge in NH after his win in Iowa. I know we dismiss that because he eventually lost the state by three-points, but prior to the Iowa Caucus, Clinton led by as much as 16 points at the first of January.

So Romney losing Iowa will change the dynamics in NH. Even though currently he leads Gingrich by an average of 18 points (who's now coming in second), that all changes with a Gingrich win in Iowa. It might not be enough to totally erase that lead, but Gingrich placing even a strong second there could lose Romney the nomination.

So he's not wrapping up anything. If he loses Iowa, it's a whole new ballgame.