"You couldn’t have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of checks and balances [at ‘60 Minutes’] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.”
What's wrong with this. I think it's pretty obvious Romney would be the best candidate. If we ran the election again today, do you think there's a chance he'd lose?
Of course there's a chance, a damned good one. Hell, it's the smart money. Unless you literally mean today. If we spring it on people with two hours notice, maybe.
Personally, I think the Republicans ought to go the Dems one better on early voting, and establish that a president loses office when his poll numbers drop below, say, one standard deviation below mean for the past 24 years.
And contract polling out to Stanley Greenberg.
The sticking point would be I would insist the office remain vacant until the next regularly scheduled election, with no law effective without the president's signature.
Sigh.
Now back to my efforts to repeal the 17th Amendment . . .
Mitt would find a way to lose. Its his especial talent. Of course, maybe if his republican supporters weren't told and didn't participate, enough regular people might not get scared off
Whenever a candidate loses is party claims he ran a bad campaign. Why? Well, he lost didn't he? QED.
Romney ran a good campaign, but he relied too much on poor polls and, more important, didn't have the astonishing ground game that Obama had (and he didn't suppress votes like Obama did). If that ground game works for the Democrats every election, and the Republicans don't figure out how to catch up, 2014 might not be as rosy as hoped. In any case, no other GOP candidate would have done nearly as well, and I bet no Republican will do as well in 2016 as Mitt did in 2012. He may win, but his campaign won't be as good.
5 Comments:
What's wrong with this. I think it's pretty obvious Romney would be the best candidate. If we ran the election again today, do you think there's a chance he'd lose?
Of course there's a chance, a damned good one. Hell, it's the smart money. Unless you literally mean today. If we spring it on people with two hours notice, maybe.
Personally, I think the Republicans ought to go the Dems one better on early voting, and establish that a president loses office when his poll numbers drop below, say, one standard deviation below mean for the past 24 years.
And contract polling out to Stanley Greenberg.
The sticking point would be I would insist the office remain vacant until the next regularly scheduled election, with no law effective without the president's signature.
Sigh.
Now back to my efforts to repeal the 17th Amendment . . .
Mitt would find a way to lose. Its his especial talent. Of course, maybe if his republican supporters weren't told and didn't participate, enough regular people might not get scared off
Whenever a candidate loses is party claims he ran a bad campaign. Why? Well, he lost didn't he? QED.
Romney ran a good campaign, but he relied too much on poor polls and, more important, didn't have the astonishing ground game that Obama had (and he didn't suppress votes like Obama did). If that ground game works for the Democrats every election, and the Republicans don't figure out how to catch up, 2014 might not be as rosy as hoped. In any case, no other GOP candidate would have done nearly as well, and I bet no Republican will do as well in 2016 as Mitt did in 2012. He may win, but his campaign won't be as good.
I don't know, anonymous. Better send that one back to the shop for rework.
Post a Comment
<< Home