dajafi wrote:Romney recalls event from before he was born

I wonder if having worked for Romney's campaign will be some sort of scarlet letter in Republican politics going forward.

“I think my dad had a job like being the grand master or whatever of the 50th celebration of the automobile in Detroit. They painted Woodward Avenue with gold paint… my memory is a little foggy here…. so I was probably four or something like that, and had the cars go down Woodward Avenue. I know they still have the parade of cars every year."

Eh, he says he doesn't really remember it. And he's riffing so you can't blame that on staff.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:Romney recalls event from before he was born

I wonder if having worked for Romney's campaign will be some sort of scarlet letter in Republican politics going forward.

“I think my dad had a job like being the grand master or whatever of the 50th celebration of the automobile in Detroit. They painted Woodward Avenue with gold paint… my memory is a little foggy here…. so I was probably four or something like that, and had the cars go down Woodward Avenue. I know they still have the parade of cars every year."

Eh, he says he doesn't really remember it. And he's riffing so you can't blame that on staff.

C'mon now, this would be like you claiming to sort of remember the '83 World Series, or me the Munich Olympics. We weren't alive!

It's not a huge deal by any stretch, but just weird. And, far as I can tell, politically pointless.

Apparently Santorum is only winning per PPP due to crossover Dem votes. I presume most meddling because they think he is the weaker nominee rather than actually being rah rah about Rick Santorum, but it is a big union state so maybe that's part of it.

If that comes to pass tomorrow, it's going on my list of things to post about if Santorum wins in November.

I hate open primaries. We're picking the nominee of our party. I really don't get why some states let people in the opposing party vote. If I was in their shoes I guess I'd do it too though.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:Romney recalls event from before he was born

I wonder if having worked for Romney's campaign will be some sort of scarlet letter in Republican politics going forward.

“I think my dad had a job like being the grand master or whatever of the 50th celebration of the automobile in Detroit. They painted Woodward Avenue with gold paint… my memory is a little foggy here…. so I was probably four or something like that, and had the cars go down Woodward Avenue. I know they still have the parade of cars every year."

Eh, he says he doesn't really remember it. And he's riffing so you can't blame that on staff.

C'mon now, this would be like you claiming to sort of remember the '83 World Series, or me the Munich Olympics. We weren't alive!

It's not a huge deal by any stretch, but just weird. And, far as I can tell, politically pointless.

Except those things are marked by dates. He probably heard stories about it growing up, so while talking about the Detroit house he used to live in he remembered the story about his dad grand marshaling some Detroit parade and threw it in there. I'm sure he thought he was in attendance as a young fella at said event.

jerseyhoya wrote:Apparently Santorum is only winning per PPP due to crossover Dem votes. I presume most meddling because they think he is the weaker nominee rather than actually being rah rah about Rick Santorum, but it is a big union state so maybe that's part of it.

If that comes to pass tomorrow, it's going on my list of things to post about if Santorum wins in November.

I hate open primaries. We're picking the nominee of our party. I really don't get why some states let people in the opposing party vote. If I was in their shoes I guess I'd do it too though.

I agree, all primaries should be semi-closed i.e. allow independents and registered members vote only with the caveat that independents can only vote in either the Rep. or Dem. primary but not both. I guess this still allows the problem of "raiding" the primary to exist in years where there is an uncontested primary (i.e. incumbent POTUS), but I think it would seriously hamper people if they had to un-register than re-register after the primary.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:Romney recalls event from before he was born

I wonder if having worked for Romney's campaign will be some sort of scarlet letter in Republican politics going forward.

“I think my dad had a job like being the grand master or whatever of the 50th celebration of the automobile in Detroit. They painted Woodward Avenue with gold paint… my memory is a little foggy here…. so I was probably four or something like that, and had the cars go down Woodward Avenue. I know they still have the parade of cars every year."

Eh, he says he doesn't really remember it. And he's riffing so you can't blame that on staff.

C'mon now, this would be like you claiming to sort of remember the '83 World Series, or me the Munich Olympics. We weren't alive!

It's not a huge deal by any stretch, but just weird. And, far as I can tell, politically pointless.

Except those things are marked by dates. He probably heard stories about it growing up, so while talking about the Detroit house he used to live in he remembered the story about his dad grand marshaling some Detroit parade and threw it in there. I'm sure he thought he was in attendance as a young fella at said event.

He could have just said he remembered his dad or other people telling him stories of whatever. He even cited what he thought his age was for no reason at all. Not a big deal, but he could've phrased what he said a lot better. "When I was growing up, there were parades celebrating the automobile. The cars went down Woodward Ave. They still have the parade of cars every year. I remember the stories of my dad being the grand marshall of the 50th anniversary parade. Etc..."

lethal wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Pretty good narrative of how we got here, but not sure if it supports this conclusion.

If they can claw out a presidential win and hold on to Congress, they will have a glorious two-year window to restore the America they knew and loved, to lock in transformational change, or at least to wrench the status quo so far rightward that it will take Democrats a generation to wrench it back. The cost of any foregone legislative compromises on health care or the deficit would be trivial compared to the enormous gains available to a party in control of all three federal branches.

On the other hand, if they lose their bid to unseat Obama, they will have mortgaged their future for nothing at all. And over the last several months, it has appeared increasingly likely that the party’s great all-or-nothing bet may land, ultimately, on nothing. In which case, the Republicans will have turned an unfavorable outlook into a truly bleak one in a fit of panic. The deepest effect of Obama’s election upon the Republicans’ psyche has been to make them truly fear, for the first time since before Ronald Reagan, that the future is against them.

Clinton had everything from 93 to 94. Didn't exactly move the country way left in that period.

Interesting article, but more interesting was the article that was linked inside of this article called "The Lost Party."

"The Lost Party" article ends with the supposition that, assuming the Republican candidate loses, the party will tilt in the direction away from whoever the nominee was - if Romney, toward the more socially conservative, economically populist wing, or if Santorum, toward the more economically-inclined socially pragmatic wing, represented by folks like Chris Christie. He winds up cheering for Santorum, hoping to see th GOP wind up in a better place four years from now.

It's led me to return to a line of thought I've been developing for several weeks now:

I've often come across the idea, in various places, that as a party sits in opposition over time, what ultimately happens is that, the longer it sits in opposition, the more willing it becomes to moderate its views, change its positions, etc., until it becomes a palatable option to the public again, and gets itself back into power (this is a favorite observation of The Economist, for example, which claims that this process was responsible for the "New Labour" of Tony Blair and the more recent version of the Conservative platform trumpeted by David Cameron and his cohorts).

Admittedly, the examples above are from England, and in many ways the United States presents a very different political environment, but there are similarities as well, in particular the historical dominance of two major parties (the recent successes of the Lib Dems notwithstanding). And yet, I'm not so sure that, in a two-party system like the one set up in this country, there is really any incentive for either party to moderate its stances at all whilst in opposition, assuming it can tolerate losing the presidential election about half, and perhaps a little more than half, of the time. I think this is something that I see Republican strategists understanding, and Democratic ones not understanding. Ultimately, as we all know, presidential elections are essentially referendums on the economy: if it's doing well, the incumbent party wins, and if it's not doing well, the incumbent party loses. If people are angry enough about the economy, in a two party system, they are going to vote for "the other guy" - no matter what 'the other guy' believes. Sure, if a party in opposition is politically savvy, in years where the economy is a weak and they have a chance of re-taking power, they will focus on the economy squarely and try to divert attention from the more "radical" portions of their platform. But downplaying and eliminating are two different things.

Which gets me to the strategy part. I think part of the reason this country is center-right in this day and age, instead of center-left as it once was, is because, when the Republicans have been in opposition, they have not softened their platform practically at all - instead, often doing the opposite, and doubling down on their economic and social philosophies. I think that the concept is you accept that some cycles just aren't yours to win, and you take the drubbing like man in those cycles, so that when your number does come up, and people are just fat fed up with the Dems, they vote for a Republican party wholly undiluted by ideological compromise.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have been and are far more susceptible to "moderating" their positions, moving rightward in an effort to be seen as more "electable," not understanding that once the electorate is fed up enough with the guys in power, they will eventually vote the Democrats way - no matter how damn liberal their platform is.

Thus, Republicans lose battles, but they win the war.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:So who is going to turn out their voters? It seems like Santorum has been getting his voters out at a better rate. So I'm predicting a good day(s) for Radical Rick.

Why does it seem like Santorum has been getting his voters out at a better rate? He hasn't won a contested primary yet.

didn't he outperform his polls in Colorado, missouri, and the other primary that day? I took that to mean he did a better job getting his people out. And I thought evangelicals usually turned out as well or better than any other group.

The chance that Santorum gives Obama a 10 point victory is not worth the chance he actually becomes president. I regret rooting against Mittens.

I guess I am alone in thnking that Santorum gives the Republicans a better shot at winning than Romney.

My thinking is that Santorum is more likely to do better in more of the states that count (Ohio, PA, Virginia, NC, MO, MI, WI, IA)

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:So who is going to turn out their voters? It seems like Santorum has been getting his voters out at a better rate. So I'm predicting a good day(s) for Radical Rick.

Why does it seem like Santorum has been getting his voters out at a better rate? He hasn't won a contested primary yet.

didn't he outperform his polls in Colorado, missouri, and the other primary that day? I took that to mean he did a better job getting his people out. And I thought evangelicals usually turned out as well or better than any other group.

He has only won one primary, and that was Missouri, which no one else competed for and had no delegates attached to it in any way, shape or form. Santorum has overperformed in a few caucuses, but I don't think he's done better than expected in the primaries so far. Santorum got 26k votes in the Colorado caucuses and 22k in the Minnesota caucuses. It's probably going to take 300k+ votes to win the Michigan primary. It's a whole different animal.

mozartpc27 wrote:I guess I am alone in thnking that Santorum gives the Republicans a better shot at winning than Romney.

My thinking is that Santorum is more likely to do better in more of the states that count (Ohio, PA, Virginia, NC, MO, MI, WI, IA)

. I think that's a lot to assume. What we know is Santorum is way to the right of Romney which usually doesn't equal a formula for success, but honestly who knows anymore.

Nate Silver giving Santorum and Romney both a 37.6% vote projection in Michigan

lethal wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:Romney recalls event from before he was born

I wonder if having worked for Romney's campaign will be some sort of scarlet letter in Republican politics going forward.

“I think my dad had a job like being the grand master or whatever of the 50th celebration of the automobile in Detroit. They painted Woodward Avenue with gold paint… my memory is a little foggy here…. so I was probably four or something like that, and had the cars go down Woodward Avenue. I know they still have the parade of cars every year."

Eh, he says he doesn't really remember it. And he's riffing so you can't blame that on staff.

C'mon now, this would be like you claiming to sort of remember the '83 World Series, or me the Munich Olympics. We weren't alive!

It's not a huge deal by any stretch, but just weird. And, far as I can tell, politically pointless.

Except those things are marked by dates. He probably heard stories about it growing up, so while talking about the Detroit house he used to live in he remembered the story about his dad grand marshaling some Detroit parade and threw it in there. I'm sure he thought he was in attendance as a young fella at said event.

He could have just said he remembered his dad or other people telling him stories of whatever. He even cited what he thought his age was for no reason at all. Not a big deal, but he could've phrased what he said a lot better. "When I was growing up, there were parades celebrating the automobile. The cars went down Woodward Ave. They still have the parade of cars every year. I remember the stories of my dad being the grand marshall of the 50th anniversary parade. Etc..."

I'm saying his recollection of the story that he presumably hasn't heard in decades since his parents have been dead awhile and god knows how or why it would have come up in conversation anyway probably included his folks telling him that he was at the parade or recounting the story as if all their kids were there instead of just some of them (he has three older siblings).

Thus, Republicans lose battles, but they win the war.

Well, maybe. When people talk about the country moving to the left or to the right, I have trouble buying it. My guess is that neither Hubert Humphrey nor Robert Taft would be very happy with the current state of politics: compared to the postwar decades, we've moved far to the "right" economically, which HHH would deplore, but even further (IMO) to the left socially, which I suspect Taft would loathe.

The common thread is the trend toward greater individual autonomy. We gave up unions and regulation; we got huge strides toward racial and gender equality. In Taft's time, homosexuality was regarded as mental illness! Now even the most viciously homophobic bigots must pay lip service to "treating everyone with respect."

The individual is larger; every institution, other than perhaps the military, is smaller. Santorum's candidacy in particular, and perhaps the non-Paul Republicans in general, might be best understood as a last-gasp reaction to this. He happens to emphasize the hard-right religious aspect, but if he wins tomorrow I think you might start to see the more libertarian mainstream Rs--by which I mean the Club for Growth types, not the Paulites--start to question his commitment to laissez-faire economics. Santorum might be a closet (hee hee) statist.

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm saying his recollection of the story that he presumably hasn't heard in decades since his parents have been dead awhile and god knows how or why it would have come up in conversation anyway probably included his folks telling him that he was at the parade or recounting the story as if all their kids were there instead of just some of them (he has three older siblings).

Everyone misspeaks and has memories of things that maybe didn't happen or they believe they remember something, but it was really a second hand story they put themselves in. It happens and its no big deal. That's fine for you and me, but this is a guy running for President of the U.S. and he's a smart guy too. One reason I actually wouldn't hate it if he won is that I think he's smarter than I am and he'd do a good job of contemplating his actions and considering his alternatives. And knowing which of his advisors to trust more than other or who has a better gut instinct about various things. My pet peeve is when politicians representing me appear dumber than I am. I'm not qualified to represent anything in any sort of government and I want people smarter than me doing that job.

Anyway, my only point is that he could've been smarter about how he said it and if he wasn't sure, he should've hedged his words. People have shamed book authors and autobiographers for misrecollections like this, where you hear stories and you begin to believe that you were at the event and the fake memory becomes the real memory in your head.

Like, my dad told me the story of the fire trucks going down Broad Street with people hanging off them after the Phillies won the 80 World Series. I know I was there with him, but I don't recall that event happening at all. Archival footage shows that it happened though. I could say that I remember the fire trucks and no one would question it, but the truth would be that my dad remembers the fire trucks and told me that story when I was younger.

Mitt could've said something similar and then its a non-story. Just have to be smarter about that kind of thing. That's all I'm saying.

didn't Al Gore make up a story about an old lady in a national debate with Bush in 2000? honestly I would never vote for Romney and this does not bother me in the least. it seems like something I would do. it's really not a big deal at all. even if it's wrong, does it matter? it's an anecdote. who cares

dajafi wrote:Romney recalls event from before he was born

It's the magic underwear.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:So who is going to turn out their voters? It seems like Santorum has been getting his voters out at a better rate. So I'm predicting a good day(s) for Radical Rick.

Why does it seem like Santorum has been getting his voters out at a better rate? He hasn't won a contested primary yet.

didn't he outperform his polls in Colorado, missouri, and the other primary that day? I took that to mean he did a better job getting his people out. And I thought evangelicals usually turned out as well or better than any other group.

He has only won one primary, and that was Missouri, which no one else competed for and had no delegates attached to it in any way, shape or form. Santorum has overperformed in a few caucuses, but I don't think he's done better than expected in the primaries so far. Santorum got 26k votes in the Colorado caucuses and 22k in the Minnesota caucuses. It's probably going to take 300k+ votes to win the Michigan primary. It's a whole different animal.

Ok, you were (rightly) distinguishing between caucuses and primaries. I was just speaking generally about his turnout numbers. One thing I would add is that Santorum didn't become a serious contender until relatively late. He may continue to outperform the polls in primaries now that he has risen to legit contender status.