We nominated John McCain 12 months ago. The "base" is either a little better at forgiving people than the media generally portrays them as being or not as powerful as is otherwise assumed.

Pawlenty isn't a frontrunner or anything because he won't have the same sort of $$ as a Romney, doesn't have a natural base like Palin, but he's a good guy, smart, a good speaker, solidly conservative, and my uncle's friend, so I want him to do well.

Romney. Bwahahahaha.

I was not a Romney supporter at all during the primaries, but he's able to talk intelligently about the economy, he'll have money, and he's doing all the right things supporting the party in the interim.

We won't beat Obama on star power in 2012. He's more than likely to be reelected, and if he isn't, it'll probably be due to the economy being in the crapper still. I think we'd do well to nominate Romney and either have him lose while articulating conservative economic principles or win because he can talk like a grown up on the issue and present an alternative course of action if the economy still isn't roaring.

TenuredVulture wrote:Romney. Bwahahahaha.

I wouldn't underestimate the work he's doing on the back end to gain appeal among the "base" (by base I don't mean angry RedStaters, I mean traditionally Republican voters that mostly voted for McCain). Right now he's sticking to editorials in conservative mags and making appearances on talk radio, but I think as time goes by he might have a chance a second time around. I was reading/hearing a lot of regret from R's during the debates too - i.e. "Man, Romney would have done way better against Obama than this angry leprichaun".

Did the Bobby Jindal luster wear off after his State of the Union response?

I don't think so, the people that like him liked him already (and people that didn't weren't going to change their mind), the people that didn't know him probably forgot. I think he's made it clear that he isn't going to be available in 2012 so the focus is off of him. He's young.

Romney's not dumb, I just think he's a terrible candidate. That other Mormon, the one in China, he'd be much better.

Romney comes off as basically insincere. The difference between Massachusetts Romney and Republican Primaries Romney might be a bigger problem for him than his Mormonism, and in neither incarnation did he effective portray a populist.

Pawlenty isn't nearly as rich, and he might not be as smart, but at least he can credibly run as a representative of "folks like you." I think that will be the niche against Obama in four years, just because Obama is so obviously not a Regular Guy and is thus attackable for both high-handed, thinks-he's-better-than-you liberal arrogance, and being too deferential to Wall Street types and unions and special interests of all sorts.

Palin and Huckabee meet this standard too, and Huck is actually kind of bright and has a pretty good record in office... but Paul might be correct that he's liking the pundit life too much to want to run again.

Romney is the Ruben Amaro of politics!

dajafi wrote:Palin and Huckabee meet this standard too, and Huck is actually kind of bright and has a pretty good record in office... but Paul might be correct that he's liking the pundit life too much to want to run again.

I do think he likes being a pundit, and the problem with his punditry is he comes off like an ass too much of the time. Huckabee the candidate/governor was a likable guy--and not a bad governor, if a little too willing to accept the perks of office. He had no problem being a socially conservative but otherwise moderate/Rockefeller/pragmatist Republican, and even on the social stuff, it wasn't a huge focus.

But in four years, his record as Arkansas's governor won't matter much, especially since so much of the good stuff doesn't seem to be the kind of thing he's much interested in now.

Hoya - how are you feeling about the GOP in NJ this year? I really think that the anti-Corzine public opinion could lead to our first GOP governor elected since Whitman. I am a registered Democrat but I can't stand Corzine.

I think Christie is about 50/50 to win. Corzine is historically unpopular, but he will have the money to define Christie with negative ads before Christie is able to become known to the 1/3-1/2 of the electorate who don't know who he is by now.

Tonight will be interesting. I'm hoping Christie can crack 55%.

Corzine's unpopular and vulnerable, no doubt. He's got a lot of money. Christie is fat. Will that matter? And there's also a chance that he doesn't win today. He doesn't seem to be the same kind of grow government while cutting taxes Republican that Whitman was.

If he loses today...I don't know when the last time I'll have been that surprised about something on an election day. Probably Don Young winning his House seat again.

But really he should win comfortably. I made my GOTV calls this afternoon. My brother and mom hadn't voted yet, so I gave them the Christie spiel. Hopefully they were moved to go cast their ballot for him.

It's pretty depressing that Corzine's strategy seems to be "make the electorate hate the other guy more than they hate me."

dajafi wrote:It's pretty depressing that Corzine's strategy seems to be "make the electorate hate the other guy more than they hate me."

Second only to proving the rule that the guy with the most money always wins.

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:It's pretty depressing that Corzine's strategy seems to be "make the electorate hate the other guy more than they hate me."

Second only to proving the rule that the guy with the most money always wins.

Eh, I can think of enough examples where that wasn't the case to not be bummed out about it.

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:It's pretty depressing that Corzine's strategy seems to be "make the electorate hate the other guy more than they hate me."

Second only to proving the rule that the guy with the most money always wins.

Eh, I can think of enough examples where that wasn't the case to not be bummed out about it.

In New Jersey?

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

dajafi wrote:It's pretty depressing that Corzine's strategy seems to be "make the electorate hate the other guy more than they hate me."

Second only to proving the rule that the guy with the most money always wins.

Eh, I can think of enough examples where that wasn't the case to not be bummed out about it.

In New Jersey?

Oh--I thought you meant anywhere. No, you're probably correct.

Yeah. Corzine more than a lot of other pols bugs me because I feel like he bought his way up the food chain in the Jersey party (which, lets face it, is your game to lose once you get the nomination) and bought his senate seat and governorship. Probably the same way folks feel about Arnold.