In theory, Mitt Romney could regain his lead against Obama among independents as quickly as he lost it. But I don’t think that is likely to happen. Romney’s plunge isn’t related to any particular gaffe. More than anything, it’s a demonstration that familiarity can breed contempt. The more people get to know R Money, the less they like him. It also helps that the economy is improving and the mood of the country is softening, and that part could change. I can’t say that Romney is utterly doomed, but he’s not going to win a popularity contest with the president.
Now, over at the Great Orange Satan, there is a bit of a flamewar going on in reaction to Markos Moulitsas’ launch of Operation Hilarity (helpfully explained by Chris Bowers here). The response was immediate with two handwringing diaries in opposition to the operation reaching the highest levels of the Recommended List. And, then Markos responded with his own recommended diary. What is Operation Hilarity?
It’s not complicated. The Republicans have decided to hold open primaries in several upcoming states (Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee and Vermont). What does that mean? It means that anyone can vote in their primaries. You don’t have to be registered as a Republican to vote. In other words, you are invited to vote in the Republican primary. If you choose not to because you aren’t a Republican, that’s your choice. It’s like turning down a dinner invitation because you hate the hosts. But showing up isn’t unethical. It won’t subvert the democratic process. It’s not even a dirty trick. They asked you to come. If they didn’t want your opinion, they would have closed the primary.
Now, it’s true that the reason both parties leave some primaries open is because they have found that an open primary helps them attract new members to their party and to motivate independents to get involved in their campaigns. They don’t really want people showing up to vote for their weakest candidate just to cause trouble. But here’s the thing: they are legally allowed to ban you from voting in their primaries and caucuses unless you are willing to join their party. Isn’t that more offensive to pure democratic principles than you accepting their invitation to vote and expressing your true opinion about who you’d like to see them nominate?
In truth, neither their decision to exclude you (in most states) nor your decision to participate (where you are allowed to) are anti-democratic. It’s their party and they can do what they want to. And it’s your vote, and if you want to cast it, that’s what you ought to do.
However, the premise of Operation Hilarity is that Mitt Romney is a better general election candidate than Rick Santorum. So, we ought to help Santorum to either win the nomination or to, at least, prolong Romney’s agony and make him spend resources.
To be clear, I’m all for that. But I am not certain that Romney is a stronger general election candidate. And the shape of the victory would be different. Romney’s appeal, where it exists at all, is in New England where he will win no states in November (excepting, perhaps, New Hampshire). Obama is showing his greatest vulnerability in the Rust Belt, not the South, not the Southwest. Romney can’t exploit Obama’s weakness anywhere near as well as Santorum can. Santorum can make the election a tribal affair of us (white Christians) against them (black, Kenyan, socialist, elitists). Romney will be too busy explaining Bain Capital and Mormon underwear to make that kind of connection.
Either way, (assuming no major crises take place) the election will be a deeply unpleasant and mostly deplorable affair with Obama winning in a landslide. I think he can hold Romney under 40%. I don’t think he can hold Santorum under 40%.
Most importantly, we won’t win the House back by doing well in North Carolina and Virginia. We’ll win it back by winning huge victories in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. The shape of a victory over Romney is better than the shape of a victory over Santorum.
Lastly, in the event that I’m wrong and one of these two clowns is going to be our next president, we clearly would rather that clown be Mitt Romney than Rick Santorum.
So, go participate in Operation Hilarity if you want to. It’s not unethical or underhanded to do so. But be careful what you wish for. Romney’s doing badly enough without our help.
“Be careful what you wish for” is basically my take on it too.
Lots of people laughed at Nixon in 1962.
The war of the superpacs is game enough for me and since I’m thinking they are finally giving reason to the billionaires to pull a few minutes worth of income out of the Cayman Islands depositories and give it to local markets where the funds are actually making it into local economies I’m all for letting the market (and I use the term loosely) settle the issue.
I simply don’t care what “former” republicans say, and that goes double for when they tell me to “help” Democrats by giving Santorum money.
So that means you hate the DCCC, also, too? Since they tend to recruit a lot of former Republicans. In fact, the guy running against Allen West is a former GOPer. And did they really advise giving money to The Frothy One?
I can’t find a reference to it, but I know I heard several times in the ’92 elections from R’s
PLEASE GIVE US CLINTON!!
Also available in orange.
I think he can hold Romney under 40%.
Wow — you’re predicted a ’64-size landslide against Romney? I dunno. I’m pretty sure LBJ is the only Democrat who’s scored over 52% of the vote since 1940, so it’s hard to imagine Obama at 60%.
Not for me. Romney is emerging as the worst presidential candidate I’ve ever seen. Mondale and Dukakis were several degrees better and McGovern had passionate supporters. The way to hold the line in the low-40s is to appeal to the tribal instincts of the Republican base. Santorum can do that. Romney can’t. I see no reason, for example, that Romney would win in Georgia. Any significant erosion of support among white voters in Mississippi (and even South Carolina) would hand the state to Obama. Even Texas could fall in Obama’s column if Romney can’t undo the damage he’s done with the Latino vote.
He’s just a terrible candidate who doesn’t connect with anyone and has the worst attributes of a politician (flip-flopping, say anything, in the bag), the worst personal biography, and the worst job experience imaginable. I’d rather run against him than Santorum.
Also, Obama did better than 52% last time. (52.87%)
He should do significantly better against either Romney or Santorum.
Booman: so if you’re thinking a landslide is likely (my assessment of the Obama team’s goal for a while now), I assume the House comes along with that, but what about your current thinking on the Senate? I’ve asked you a few times about this and you have remained pessimistic–do you see any hope there yet? I saw something (don’t remember well) about Conrad’s supposedly sure Republican pickup seat in ND, for example, actually now rated a toss-up by Charlie Cook. Do some of the landslide scenarios alter your pessimism about a hold for Dems?
Yes, a landslide protects our incumbents and makes pickups in MA, AZ, and NV much more likely. North Dakota is indeed a toss-up, but it’s now an energy state like Oklahoma and will be increasingly tough for Democrats to win. The better Obama does, the most likely we can hold the seat.
But we don’t have candidates in Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi, or Alabama that could truly take advantage of a landslide and help us actually pick up seats. We’re looking at a very low upside in the Senate.
What pickup in MA(ssachusetts)?
Scott Brown.
The liberal reaction to Rush Limbaugh’s similar “Operation Chaos” during the 2008 primary was outrage and contempt.
Here’s the only thing I ever wrote about Operation Chaos. When he linked it to rioting at the DNC in Denver, I complained. But only because he was inciting violence. I never complained once about Operation Chaos.
Count me among the “Be careful what you wish for” crowd. That was my first reaction when I saw Markos’ post.
Right now I am a bit more uneasy about those residing in the fevered swamp that is Rick Santorum’s crazy religious world than I am the deep pockets of Mitt’s billionaires. Here in my state, Rick Santorum would have a much greater impact on down ticket races than Mittens. And, by the way, Santorum is leading here in the polling for the Super Tuesday primary.
Boo:
Do you know why The Frothy One is dangerous in the Midwest? Because he voted against NAFTA!!!!
Seriously, why bother? The Republicans are already doing a bang-up job. I think Kos is just trolling for page hits.
I’ve been saying for months Romney is a non-entity propped up by money, with little chance in a general election other than economic calamity. Now, based on mere intuition, I’m ready to call it: Romney will not be the nominee.
Umm, this isn’t exactly a new idea. This exact same thing happened, where Democrats were encouraged to go vote in the Republican primary, in Michigan in 2008. Then it was because Michigan had been penalized for violating party rules and had been stripped of their delegates so most of the Democratic candidates didn’t even partake.
Thanks for reminding me – that whole primary season was a clusterf*ck of magnificent proportions here in Michigan.
Remember that Santorum is campaigning for Pope, not President. How long before he sez 2 things which we all know he believes:
That will pretty much finish him in the male demographic. All income ranges, all regions, all education levels.
The only question is when some enterprising reporter, or over-enthusiastic supporter, gives Pope Rick the opportunity to expound on said topics.
I like it.
That would be funny.
But would the feminists take charge of it as a women’s issue?
Would they complain it’s just another case of an old, limp, white male misogynist making war on women?
That would be even funnier.
Much funnier than “operation hilarity.”
Anybody who cares about the rights of women would never cast a vote for either one of those guys. It doesn’t surprise me that such an idea would come from “I sneer at women’s issues” Markos, although one hopes he has learned a bit over the years.
I hate to see the whole process turned into a Breitbart-type game.
Such sneering having swelled the ranks of this very site during the pie wars.
.
The best memories @BooMan … the frog pond doubled in size.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Old school BooMan. Some long forgotten names in those threads.
I think you have Markos pegged all wrong. Do you really think it benefits the GOP to have a war on women? I don’t. The more they go down that right, the worse off they’ll be.
If I thought it actually meant anything I would denounce this business as unethical.
Up to now the most disgusting thing KOS has done has been to equate the American Christian right with the Afghan Taliban Jihaders.
Well, now he’s upped the ante and made himself a more equal competitor for the title, “American Politics’ Lowest Scumbag,” with Andrew Breitbart and the worst the conservative movement has to offer.
And people like KOS who insist on this “all’s fair” attitude in our political contests both drag American democracy into a dangerous race to the bottom and disgust the majority that want both sides to play by the rules.
Don’t bother to remind me there are times when the stakes justify flouting the rules, and causes more important than abiding by procedure.
This is not such a time and there is no such cause at issue.
This is just KOS emulating Limbaugh and that Nixon stooge who was deservedly jailed for his dirty tricks, Donald Segretti.
American democracy is not a lawless state of nature and political contests in a democracy are not civil wars.
what rule is being flouted?
These are OPEN primaries. You are invited to tell the Republicans who you want to be their nominee. Well, who do you want?
I don’t get it. You also wrote:
“But here’s the thing: they are legally allowed to ban you from voting in their primaries and caucuses unless you are willing to join their party.”
Which kind of cancels out the “come one, come all” image of open primaries that you invoked in the first place. Agreeing to join their party seems to me a little more consequential than accepting a dinner invitation from someone you don’t like.
“Isn’t that more offensive to pure democratic principles than you accepting their invitation to vote and expressing your true opinion about who you’d like to see them nominate?”
The idea of the Republican Party not wanting Democrats to vote in a Republican primary, even an “open” primary, doesn’t offend my democratic principles, “pure” or otherwise, in the slightes. It is perfectly reasonable and justified. It’s only to be expected that a Democrat would want the GOP to nominate the candidate most easily defeated by the Democratic candidate, or to gum up their primary campaigns in some other way. That is not what a primary is supposed to for.
I don’t think I have to read what is going on at DK, but in my mind, it’s obvious that Republicans could just as easily return the favor (as they already have done in the past). If this became widespread it would destroy the whole primary process. Not just the open primaries, for what’s to prevent Republicans from “strategically” joining the Democratic Party if they thought they could effectively screw up even a closed primary? This would make a mockery of the whole idea of party primaries.
First, I’m opposed to the idea of open primaries because a party should be led by its members and the officers its members elect. We have all kinds of Democratic Party committees where decisions are made and we don’t invite in independents and Republicans. If they choose to impersonate Democrats or join the party under false pretenses they can, of course, cause some mischief. But that is never done in large numbers. Our most important decision is the selection of a presidential nominee. It ought to be our decision alone. And it doesn’t have to be done by popular election, either. It can be done just as well by electing delegates who will may be pledged to a certain candidate but who are empowered to select someone different if, months later, it turns out their candidate is no longer viable. A political party is not the same thing as a political election.
So, if intervening in OPEN primaries on the Republican side causes them to close their primaries, I’d be in favor of that. I’d like to close the Democratic primaries, as is done here in Pennsylvania.
Once again, if you have an open primary, you are relinquishing your right to insist that your party members determine the victor. It’s your choice. A substantial number of voters want the Republicans to nominate their weakest candidate. If you allow them to participate, then they have every right to participate.
If that’s not how a primary is supposed to work, then don’t design your primary that way. It’s perfectly legal to design it differently.
That wasn’t clear to me. I agree with you about open primaries.
I also support closed primaries and think opens ones bad for democracy and bad for America.
What is legal is not necessarily acceptable and can be far from honorable.
Not every rule is written.
An open primary is intended to discover who, among those available for choice,those voting would prefer for the office and advance that person toward nomination.
KOS is urging people to sabotage that process for eventual party advantage and thus to sabotage American democracy for eventual party advantage.
Those who do not disapprove are part of the problem.
See, I just understand why you look at what Kos is doing that way.
In Pennsylvania, our primaries are closed, even to independents. So, if I want to vote in the GOP primary, I have to change my registration to Republican. If I do that, everyone will be able to see that I’ve done it. That creates a powerful disincentive for me to take the actions necessary to vote in the GOP primary. And it sends a clear message that my opinion isn’t valued or wanted.
But Michigan lets everyone vote. That indicates to me that my opinion is being solicited. I know that they don’t want me to go vote for someone just because I think they’ll lose, but I do have an opinion about who I’d like to see them nominate, and they’re intentionally creating a system where everyone in the state can vote. Why shouldn’t I express my opinion?
You seem to be saying that there is a gentleman’s agreement (or there should be) that people will vote for people they actually support. I think I do actually support Santorum in the Michigan primary. I’m mindful, of course, of all the things I wrote in this article. But I think it’s probably best that the chaos continue and Romney lose some more pints of blood. So, I see no reason why I shouldn’t express my support for Santorum by voting for him. It’s an open primary where Democrats are explicitly allowed to vote. Other Democrats are voting, why shouldn’t I?
And that gets back to the point you’re responding to. Open primaries are stupid. Why ask for my opinion if you don’t want it?
There’s also the matter that Santorum could do damage to America’s reputation in the general election even if he doesn’t win. Perry managed to cause an international incident with Turkey in the Republican primaries after all. I’d rather avoid the spectacle of a national election for the most powerful position in the country where one of the candidates is openly celebrating the assassination of foreign scientists and calling for war.
On the other hand, if Mitt Romney wins the nomination and loses the general election, the right wing can cling to their position that the Republican party isn’t conservative enough. If Santorum is nominated and goes on to lose in a debacle, maybe there will be some long overdue introspection among Republicans about the direction of their party.
If Santorum is nominated and goes on to lose in a debacle, maybe there will be some long overdue introspection among Republicans about the direction of their party.
I won’t believe it till I see it.
nah, the R’s won’t change too much. After Goldwater and the right lead the R’s to the worst drubbing ever, the pragmatists took over from the shell shocked amateur right. The R’s didn’t really change. It was not so much in what they were saying, but in how they framed it.
Just like Goldwater and his not ready for prime time organization, these guys today are running today blowing off their mouths without thinking about what is going to happen to those words.
A fair treatment is to be found here. This treatment attempts to show that the R’s didn’t necessarily move to the left somuch as they became more professional about the campaigning.
If you just go by their stated positions, Romney is about the same as Santorum.
But if you take into account that Romney is certainly lying about most of his stated positions, then he’d be preferable.
It’s hubris to think we can predict the future. Still, I’m not buying the notion that Santorum is more dangerous than Mittens. Limbaugh and FauxNews will pirouette just as they did with McCain and whip up the base. Santorum will endorse and maybe even wind up on the ticket. No, I’d much rather go against Santorum because the guy will fire up our base, turn out women in droves to vote against him and ultimately humiliate himself. I’m seeing far more damage to Republican down-ticket races with Santorum than Mitt.
From your lips to God’s ears.
Santorum would lose women by a larger margin than Walter Mondale. Obama would set a new record with 60-65%. Women vote in larger proportions than men. Santorum is weaker.
Yes, “Let’s change the subject.”
Why not? We’re talking to a billionaire after all.
Totally unclear.
You even noted that Santorum wouldn’t depress down-ticket races as much as you STILL preferred him even as a Democrat compared to the other two.
I guess I’m vacillating.
That made me literally LOL. You’re not even decisive about your state of indecision!
I will have to bring this up with my psychologist 😉
The GOP race is so insane no one can ever decide anything for more than a week. 😀
This is an incredibly bad idea for so many reasons.
Wisconsin has open primaries. There will, for example, be a primary to determine who will face Scott Walker in the recall election. Since Republicans won’t have a primary for that race, they are legally able to vote in the Democratic primary. Do we want to be encouraging them to do that?
It is quite possible that the Republicans will place the name of a phony Democrat on the ballot in the primary. They did this in the last round of recall elections. Then the Republicans show up and vote for the phony candidate. This is just a nuisance when there is not a seriously contested Democratic race. But suppose there are two or three candidates splitting the Democratic vote. And one phony candidate getting the entire Republican vote. Then the phony candidate can win, and there would be no recall election. That’s the kind of activity that Moulitsas is supporting here.
In 1946, the Democrats faced what looked like a hopeless task in defeating incumbent Senator Bob Lafollette, Jr., whose father was an icon in Wisconsin politics. But some Republican clown was challenging Lafollette in the primary. So a bunch of Democrats voted in the Republican primary to tilt the scales in favor of the weak candidate, some guy named Joe McCarthy. Yeah, that worked out real well.
But if Moulitsas really wanted to make things rough on Romney by giving Santorum a primary victory, he just did the worst thing he could possibly do for his own cause. Once Romney goes on the air with how liberal Democrats are backing Santorum, how is that going to help Santorum’s numbers? And if Santorum does manage to win the primary (which actually seemed pretty likely until now), wouldn’t his victory be tainted, so much so that Romney will be able to dismiss the result as a product of Democratic shenanigans.
Brilliant concept!
You just pointed out that Republicans have already done this and could do it again. Whether Dems do it or not, and again they’d be voting for a legit candidate not a fake, the Republicans wills till do it.
Second, McCarthy was such a horrible over-the-top asshole that he arguably dealt the anti-Communism witch hunts a blow if you look at everything.
Finally, because Santorum actually looks stronger than Romney, giving Santorum wins while making Romney able to attack him on something weakens them both and has a better chance of keeping both in the race.
Hey.
Let’s rob banks.
If we don’t the crooks will just go right on robbing banks.
So what the heck.
Better jump in!