Democrats & Liberals Archives

Some In The Media Are Looking For New Hampshire Drama, But Won't Find It

Today the media is talking about tomorrow’s New Hampshire primary as if Romney isn’t a lock. They want drama but they won’t find it. Let me tell you why not.

Daily Beast for instance writes:

Here's what you need to know about New Hampshire that keeps frontrunner Mitt Romney on his toes and the other candidates putting in 20 hour days: Dreams can come true. ... Just ask Barack Obama, who was leading Hillary Clinton in 2008 by 13 points the day before the primary. ... Just when it seemed Clinton was finished, New Hampshire gave her a stunning upset victory, throwing the Obama campaign into chaos.

The only problem with that is it's not true. You might be able to find one poll before the 2008 primary where candidate Obama lead by 13 points. The average of the polls tells a different story.

The difference between polls for Hillary Clinton and the final result was 30% polling and 39%. Where did that 9% come from? Some of it came from erosion of final support for the others and the rest came from undecided voters breaking her way.

What about the GOP primary in 2008? McCain came in leading polls and undecided voters broke his way. The difference was about 5%.

So where do things stand in New Hampshire this year? As of this moment Romney has an 18.7% advantage over 2nd place Paul. The 3rd place candidates are back 27%.

You can look at RCP's record of matching polling averages to final results and I doubt you'll ever find a miss that is 18.7% off. Mitt Romney is going to win New Hampshire and I predict he'll win it by at least 10%. Even if Paul, Santorum, and Gingrich manage to erode 3% each that's only 9% total with a gap of 18.7%.

That doesn't mean the nomination is in the bag. There's still South Carolina and Florida that are hardly decided at this point and then the rest of the schedule is pretty spread out. Perry and Huntsman shouldn't stay past New Hampshire but they may. I don't know what they're thinking at this point. If they do leave the picture it will be interesting to see who their voters shift to.

Santorum and Gingrich will both finish poorly in New Hampshire but they have reason to believe other states will favor them somehow. It will be interesting to see how many voters are still supporting Paul and how he finishes in New Hampshire. I expect those three will stay in the race for some time.

Posted by Adam Ducker at January 9, 2012 11:57 AM
Comment #334271

Your article sums it up. A win is a win, and Willard is a lock for NH. Despite the media attempts to generate interest in a horse race of expectations, everyone knows that’s irrelevant. South Carolina will be the make or break. If the right wing cannot make a stand there, the Tea Party and social conservatives are cooked, and they know it. The establishment corporatists will be firmly in charge, which is the way the establishment corporatists like it. Polls show Willard is ahead in SC, and his SuperPAC will bury the next closest competitor in negative advertising. Wonder how Newt Gingrich feels about Citizens United now! As usual, the establishment corporatists will say whatever is necessary to placate the far right social conservatives, whip up some enthusiasm, whip up the usual hatred for Obama, goose them into voting R… but the far right and Tea Party suspect the charade. Romney is too transparent, too obviously willing to compromise on virtually any issue other than the sanctity of corporate personhood and his deep love of Wall Street.

I caught a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh this morning, first time in a long time. He was livid. Romney is not a social conservative or a Tea Partier, and Rush knows it. The GOP base is dispirited and for good reason.

You see it on WB. Conservatives have little to say. The 15 or so debates over these past few months have been a catastrophe for the social conservatives and Tea Party, because the debates have televised and the far right lunacy and foolishness has been on display for all to see. It could not have gone worse.

Posted by: phx8 at January 9, 2012 2:46 PM
Comment #334275

ph8x & Adam

Romney is my first choice. I understand from you guys that he is too moderate to be nominated, that the Republicans move in lockstep and the the extreme right controls the party. It seems like all these things cannot be right at the same time.

So it looks like Republicans will make the moderate choice.

“because the debates have televised and the far right lunacy and foolishness has been on display for all to see. It could not have gone worse.”

This is what is supposed to happen. People air their views and we come to a choice.

I don’t think all “the far right” says is foolishness. They are often expressing anger at the direction the country has taken. We heard such anger on the Daily Kos, from Code Pink & various other leftish organizations. I thought this was foolishness and lunacy. Passionate people often seem like that.

But I go with the moderate Romney. I like his experience and success in the private sector, the non-profit sector and government. He faced off against the International Olympic Committee and made that disorganized and often ethically challenged organization work. Does this perhaps remind you of Congress? He fixed the finances in Massachusetts. I don’t hold Romneycare against him. It was an experiment in one state - the laboratory of democracy. The results there should have informed the national debate. It was a teachable momement, but Obama folks are unteachable.

Anyway, let’s wait a few more days. Then you guys can attack Romney. Explain that he really is the choice of the right wing, that he is not moderate, that he is stupid, dishonest and greedy … you know the usual things you guys call conservatives.

It is sort of like in the movie “Casablanca” - “round up the usual suspects.”

Posted by: C&J at January 9, 2012 5:50 PM
Comment #334276

Romney stupid? No. Dishonest? Yes. Greedy? Sure.

“Too moderate to be nominated”? Well, he lies to Republicans and Democrats alike about his stands on issues, changing them to match the audience. With the exception of his love for his friends, the corporations, he has taken both sides on virtually every issue. In a way, that may help him as president, because he will compromise on anything, as long as it doesn’t interefere with enriching the wealthiest of the wealthy, the one percent.

And that is not the same as being “too moderate.”

Do you really like his private sector experience? Really?

He supported the Vietnam War, but instead of serving, he went to France to do missionary work, which fortunately for him, involved living in a palace. Nice work if you can get it.

Do you really like what Willard did while at Bain? Really? Because he was a corporate raider. He led a company that borrowed money in order to raid other companies, strip assets, and institute big layoff, all in order to enrich Bain ownership at the direct expense of the workers. These raids left a shell of the company behind. Some companies survived the raid. Many failed. That’s what a corporate raider does. It ain’t pretty.

That discussion hasn’t even started. Gingrich launched some attack ads, but Newt doesn’t have enough money to survive. Be sure, you will learn a lot more about what Romney did to ordinary people when he raided their companies.

So it will be interesting to see what happens. The GOP moves in lockstep, but the far right may choke on the idea of uniting behind an establishment coporatist like Romney. Most will back him. Many will not.

The far right controls the votes. The establishment corporatists control the money.

For Republicans, the big question is simple: how many social conservatives will get behind Romney and vote?

By the way, Bush said he would run the government like a CEO. So, uh, how did that work out?

Posted by: phx8 at January 9, 2012 6:43 PM
Comment #334277

phx8 rails at Romney as a corporate raider and job eliminator. Many of the companies Bain funded are doing well today with thousands of more employees than before.

But, on the subject, let’s examine the GM taxpayer-funded bankruptcy. Before the takeover GM had 92,000 employees…after, 77,000 employees a loss of 16% of jobs and at taxpayer expense.

In the opinion of many who study such things, a regular bankruptcy by GM would have yielded about the same number of continuing jobs as the taxpayer-funded bankruptcy.

The White House estimates an eventual $14 billion price tag for the GM and Chrysler bailouts. Did that $14 billion save millions of jobs?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 9, 2012 7:19 PM
Comment #334279

Royal Flush,
No need to take my word for it when it comes to Romney and Bain. Here is Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the House candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Presumably you’ll take the word of a fellow conservative on Romney and Bain:

““Is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money, or is that somehow a little bit of a flawed system?” Gingrich told reporters after a visit to an electric company here. “I do draw a distinction between looting a company, leaving behind broken families and broken neighborhoods, and leaving behind a factory that should be there,” he said.”

Or do you prefer Perry, Governor of Texas, Tea Party supporter, and candidate for the Republican presidential nomination?

“Mr. Perry argued at an event in South Carolina that Mr. Romney had pushed the quest for profits too far. “There is nothing wrong with being successful and making money,” he said. “But getting rich off failure and sticking someone else with the bill is indefensible.”

By the way, the WSF article goes on to present an… unflattering… picture of just what happened to companies after Romney and Bain played chop shop.

Posted by: phx8 at January 9, 2012 7:57 PM
Comment #334280

Not everyone subscribes to the WSJ and can read your link.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 9, 2012 8:02 PM
Comment #334281


You once told us that Romney could never get past the “right wing” We disagreed then I made this offer, which you wisely declined, indicating that you didn’t believe in your heart what you defended in your rhetoric. We both know that Romney CAN be nominated by the Republican and even you suspect he will make a better president than Obama.

This from the archives still makes sense -

Re Romney

You are saying that he is too smart to be nominated by Republicans. How about this for a deal? If Romney is nominated, you promise to vote for him and against Obama. In return I will give you a quartet. If Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich or Santorum are nominated, I will vote for Obama and against them. You guys like to bring up these guys. You know they are not serious contenders. If I am wrong, let’s you or any other liberals take my wager.

Republicans have their share of out of touch and/or dummies. Democrats do too. Think of the near greats. You have Pelosi, Gore and our current favorite - Weiner. Of course, you actually nominated John Kerry.

Posted by: C&J at June 13, 2011 7:28 PM

Posted by: C&J at January 9, 2012 8:06 PM
Comment #334282

Good points Royal, but you forget, those 16% of GM employees will be eligible for 2 years of unemployment and can join the other 50 million Americans who are on food stamps. Not to mention the military and civilians working for the military who will lose their jobs from Obama’s latest cut to the military.

The left loves to brag about the success of Obama and the economy (in their dreams); so today Obama cans William Daley, WH COS. Do you recon the Obama WH is worried about the economy? It’s getting pretty bad when Obama has to fire another one of his Chicago thugs.

Posted by: Frank at January 9, 2012 8:08 PM
Comment #334283

What comment number in what article? I can’t make sense of it.

Royal Flush,
I don’t subscribe to the WSJ, but my link seems to work. Sorry. Don’t know what’s going on with that one.

As for GM… that is a subject you probably don’t want to raise in a discussion about Romney. On 11/18/2008 He wrote a notorious opinion piece for the NYT:

“Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”

Posted by: phx8 at January 9, 2012 8:16 PM
Comment #334284

Here is the latest CBS poll:

The interesting thing is that not only does Romney beat Obama, but Ron Paul has tied him. Whe was the last time Obama got more than 50% (never) in any poll? Anything less than 50% loses.

I believe we are seeing another election meltdown of the left. Remember 2010?

I will have no problem voting for Romney. Anyone is better than the Constitution trashing idiot we now have in the WH.

Posted by: Frank at January 9, 2012 8:24 PM
Comment #334285

“Let Detroit go bankrupt”

Yes, and let every other democrat controlled state or city do the same. If the people are ignorant enough to elect clowns for politicians then they deserve whatever comes their way. Hopefully the American people are smart enough to understand what Obama’s promise of change really meant. To bankrupt our nation…

Posted by: Frank at January 9, 2012 8:30 PM
Comment #334286


I don’t know the number but it is from June 13 last year on one of your posts.

Posted by: C&J at January 9, 2012 9:02 PM
Comment #334288

“In the opinion of many who study such things, a regular bankruptcy by GM would have yielded about the same number of continuing jobs as the taxpayer-funded bankruptcy.”

Royal Flush,

GM and Chrysler could not have undergone a “regular” Ch. 11 bankruptcy because they could not obtain the funds necessary for operations as a “debtor in possession.” They would have had to have been liquidated. Those are the facts. The structured bankruptcy, with government funding for short term operation, allowed the corporations to maintain their structural integrity while trimming contracts, including union, re-negotiating creditor debt, etc. under bankruptcy rules.

Posted by: Rich at January 9, 2012 9:35 PM
Comment #334289

Who would be a better president? Obama or Romney?

Obama represents a known quantity. There have been some successes, especially with foreign policy. There have been some failures, especially concerning the continuation of Bush era policies and the Patriot Act. Obama has kept most of his campaign promises, but not all of them. In general, he seems capable, confident, and competent. He runs a relatively clean administration. There has not been much in the way of scandal and corruption. So- it’s been a good peformance, but not a great one. In retrospect, I think these first three years will be viewed as a clean up of the mess left by the previous administration- killing Bin Laden, withdrawing from Iraq, and (eventually) winding down in Afghanistan; and rescuing the economy from depression… at great cost. Good, but not great. Obama took a bad situation and made it better.

What would a Romney presidency look like? I don’t know, because Romney represents such a muddle when it comes to issues. Would he become very conservative? Would he be relatively liberal? I don’t know. Would his willingness to work with Democrats in MA as governor translate into a willingness to work with Democrats and compromise in Washington DC? If so, would the right wing revolt? Who will control the House? The Senate?

Mathematically, the odds strongly favor the GOP to take control the Senate. The GOP should retain the House. However, the tone of the times favors the personality and background and experience of Obama, and not the personality, the Wall Street/corporate raider background of wealth, and inexperience of Romney.

Romney got his clock cleaned by Ted Kennedy and failed to obtain the nomination in 2008, despite a weak field headed by McCain. Obama is a superior campaigner who has always been on top of his game, and never lost.

We’ll see…

Posted by: phx8 at January 9, 2012 9:52 PM
Comment #334291

Royal Flush,
I don’t subscribe to the WSJ, but my link seems to work. Sorry. Don’t know what’s going on with that one.

As for GM… that is a subject you probably don’t want to raise in a discussion about Romney. On 11/18/2008 He wrote a notorious opinion piece for the NYT:

“Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”

Posted by: phx8 at January 9, 2012

The link to the WSJ gives two paragraphs and then says to subscribe to read the rest of the article.

Detroit is Bankrupt…check it out. The government bailout of GM resulted in about the same number of remaining employees that a regular bankruptcy would have anticipated without the waste of taxpayer dollars.

It makes as much sense to blame obama for the loss of auto jobs as it does to blame Romney for loss of jobs while he was with Bain.

phx8 writes that Romney lacks experience. Surely he jests. I won’t bother to cite all the public and private experience he has but merely ask phx8 what vast experience, public and private, that obama laid claim to when he ran in 2008.

obama trumps any republican candidate in his expertise in spending taxpayer money. Sure hope he runs on that claim to fame.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 10, 2012 10:05 AM
Comment #334292

Romney as president won’t be bad for the far right side of the party if they are able to take control of the Congress. If that is the case, there will be no compromising as Republicans will have a rubber stamp president.

The far right has had the power to prevent the Republican Congressional leadership from compromising, so we should know what to expect if they gain control of the Senate.

Posted by: jlw at January 10, 2012 10:37 AM
Comment #334295

Royal Flush,
Romney came from a rich family. Obama did not.

Both are intelligent, and both are well educated.

After finishing their educations, Romney sought to make as much money as possible. He started with a lot, and made even more. Obama passed on an opportunity to make a multi-six figure salary in the private sector, in order to serve as a community organizer. Most of the money he made came from writing a book.

Obama taught constitutional law at the university level. Romney ran an Olympic Committee.

Obama helped his community by serving as a community organizer. Romney helped his community by serving as a Stake President, the LDS equivalent of a low level bishop.

Both men are married with families, and have the basic decency to stand by their wife and chiildren.

Obama won elections as a state senator and US senator. Romney lost a bid for the US Senate, and served one term as governor of MA.

Obama is a gifted orator. Romney is not.

Both demonstrate fund raisinig ability, and the ability to create and run a national campaign, which shows significant organizational skill. Obama succeeded in winning his party’s nomination on his first try, despite facing an extremely strong opponent in Hillary Clinton. Despite running in a weak field, Romney lost his first bid for his party’s nomination to McCain.

Obama now has three years experience as a president. Romney does not. This alone explains why a president running for re-election has the election viewed as a referendum. Is the current president worth keeping, or is it worth training a new one? Obama entered office with no foreign policy experience, yet he has performed exceptionally well. Romney has no foreign policy experience. He may or may not perform well. Romny has more private sector experience and executive experience at the state level, but less legislative experience at both state and national levels.

Posted by: phx8 at January 10, 2012 12:24 PM
Comment #334296

phx8, your listed accomplishments for obama prior to his wining the office of president are far below those of Romney.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 10, 2012 1:14 PM
Comment #334298

How do you figure? I was pretty specific.

Posted by: phx8 at January 10, 2012 1:37 PM
Comment #334299

Obama was a state senator and U.S. senator but for how long phx8? I think his holding of both offices were never completed before he sought the next higher office. Being a good orator does not make you a good president. Like the saying goes “if you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with BS” and Obama does a pretty good job of that.

Posted by: KAP at January 10, 2012 2:44 PM
Comment #334302

Obama served three terms in the Illinois Senate, 1997 to 2004, and four years in the US Senate.

Romney served four years as Governor of MA.

Being a good orator is an asset for any politician.

Posted by: phx8 at January 10, 2012 3:28 PM
Comment #334303

You mean Obama campaigned 4 years in the Senate just like he has campaigned for 3 years as president. I agree being a good orator is a plus especially in Obama’s case dazzeling everyone with BS. Like I said being a good talker does not make a good president.

Posted by: KAP at January 10, 2012 3:41 PM
Comment #334304

For the past five years, Romney has done NOTHING but run for president.

Every politician’s time in office can be dismissed as just so much campaigning. Every one. It’s a lazy way of denigrating achievements in office.

Until campaign finance laws are changed, political campaigning will continue to be a problem. Unfortunately, the conservatives on the Supreme Court keep shooting down campaign finance reforms such as the one passed in AZ. Conservatives on the Supreme Court support corporate personhood. Conservatives on the Supreme Court uphold the idea that money is free speech. Their ruling in Citizens United made a big impact in 2010, but it is only now receiving notice because its conservative supporters, such as Gingrich, are suddenly on the receiving end of enormous amounts of anonymously funded attack ads. Romney and his friends- both human, corporate, and his church- have amounts of money most people would find difficult to comprehend to go negative.

Romney’s campaign manager is an opposition researcher. Everyone knows what’s coming.

Posted by: phx8 at January 10, 2012 4:06 PM
Comment #334306


“Obama is a gifted orator. Romney is not.” Obama is not inspiring like Ronald Reagan. His speeches on campaign are good. His speeches as president, not so much.

Obama represents a known quantity. Yes. No more hope. Now we have experience.

There have been some successes, especially with foreign policy. – Obama harvested ripe fruit. He has been lucky in Libya. IMO – he failed to take advantage of event in Iran in 2009. Iraq is still unknown. He has thrown the dice on this one. I hope it works. Much of his foreign policy success is based on the continuation of Bush policies or the bearing fruit of Bush ear initiatives, but foreign policy in implementation is mostly bipartisan. IMO, Obama performed well, but mostly through his non-action, i.e. he did no harm.

“There have been some failures, especially concerning the continuation of Bush era policies and the Patriot Act.” – Obama chose to continue many Bush era programs because after becoming president he understood better why they were needed. He will not close Guantanamo, for example, because there are some real bad guys there.

“Obama has kept most of his campaign promises, but not all of them. In general, he seems capable, confident, and competent.” – Not really. He promised health care reform that would control costs. He delivered health care extension that are more expensive. He promised to reform the financial system. He maintained the crony capitalism and even extended it. He promised unemployment would not go to 8%. He delivered this, but in the wrong direction (it didn’t go down to 8%).

He runs a relatively clean administration – much like others. The MSM doesn’t bother him as much because he is liberal. When you look at accusations against Bush folks v actual results, there is not much there.

“Mathematically, the odds strongly favor the GOP to take control the Senate. The GOP should retain the House. However, the tone of the times favors the personality and background and experience of Obama …” Obama has horrible relations with Congress. He doesn’t even get along well with the members from his own party.

Posted by: C&J at January 10, 2012 4:21 PM
Comment #334307

Obama’s speeches draw crowds at home and abroad that dwarf anything Reagan ever did.

According to polls, about 3/4 of the American people want the US out of Iraq. The Iraqi government insists we leave. Part of the reason Obama is president and Hillary is not is because Obama pledged to make good on the withdrawal date originally set by Bush. It was the right thing to do. Whether for good or bad, it is now up to the Iraqis. It’s they’re choice.

Predictions are not the same as promises.

The Bush administration was bad news. Large amounts of money disappeared in Iraq and elsewhere, and the GOP refused to even investigate. There’s simply no comparison, and no, the amount of corruption isn’t just a function of a supposedly liberal media coverage.

Obama does just fine with Congress. There are two problems: 1) in the House, Boehner cannot control his own caucus, and 2) the Senate is disfunctional due to filibusters, so that it often takes a supermajority for even the most mundane things. The GOP made recovering power more important than the good of the country, and they have paid the price. Congress has never been more unpopular, Boehner and McConnell are even more unpopular than Reid and Pelosi, and the GOP is more unpopular than the Democrats.

Posted by: phx8 at January 10, 2012 4:52 PM
Comment #334309


Re Obama and Congress - He is not a great success there, even with Democrats.

It may be true that the president and congress make each other less popular by their inability to work constructively. But Reagan worked constructively with Democrats. Clinton worked with Republicans. What is Obama’s problem.

Re Obama’s oratory - like so many other things Obama, he took credit up front. His speeches are less wonderful now that he is really in charge. He promised hope. People love that. After four years it doesn’t seem as likely.

Re Bush - Bush is not running. You can argue that Obama is not as bad as Bush, but you will be talking to yourself. I feel no need to defend a president who ran for reelection eight years ago. I am worried about the one running for reelection now.

Posted by: C&J at January 10, 2012 6:16 PM
Comment #334310

“Romney sought to make as much money as possible.”

That makes Romney uniquely qualified to be the Republican nominee.

Re Obama and Congress-He is not a great success there, even with Democrats.”

C&J, boy, you hit the nail on the head there! No president that attempts to change the status quo in any measurable way is going to be popular with either party in the paid to maintain Congress.

A 10% approval rating? Who reelects these people? Frank?

The best that can be expected is minor, mostly cosmetic changes from Democrats and nothing but a stone wall from Republicans who are determined to maintain their failed policies, but in a more draconian fashion.

Posted by: jlw at January 10, 2012 7:19 PM
Comment #334311

“He promised unemployment would not go to 8%.”


You know that he never made such a promise. Yet, you keep repeating it.

PolitiFact has addressed the claim on more than one occasion. They found that nobody in the administration, including Obama, ever made such a direct public pledge. It comes from an estimate in a memo prepared prior to his inauguration by his economic advisers. The authors of that paper cautioned that “all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error.” They further cautioned that “uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity.”

It should also be remembered that the impact of the proposed stimulus and estimate of unemployment was prepared at a time (December 2008) before the full severity of the recession was fully realized. The fact of the matter is that if the incoming Obama administration underestimated anything, it was the severity of the recession. By the time that Obama took office and the stimulus package was actually passed and signed into law, the unemployment rate had already exceeded 8%.

But, what the heck, facts shouldn’t get in the way of a good political story.

Posted by: Rich at January 10, 2012 7:49 PM
Comment #334314

I must say, I had a good laugh at phx8’s list of Obama accomplishments:

For a black boy on welfare, he came up with some big bucks for Ivy League schools.

The only job Obama held was as a community agitator, forerunner to OWS.

His Constitution teaching abilities are in question; since he continues to violate the Constitution.

The best one was his oratory skills; and how does he do when the teleprompter goes down? Duh, Uh, Duh, Uh, Uh…

He was placed into politics by the same corrupt political machine that now has 2 governors making license plates.

Here’s a good one “For the past five years, Romney has done NOTHING but run for president.” For the past 3 years Obama has done nothing except run for a second term.

The truth is, Obama is becoming very unpopular. A 4 point drop in approval ratings in the past few days:

Posted by: TomT at January 10, 2012 8:54 PM
Comment #334316


Obama was never a beneficiary of welfare. His mother received food stamps. In any case, I don’t think Obama had much input on the matter.

Obama held other jobs to help pay for his education, but most of the funding came through student loans. Just like white people, TomT. Student loans. Those loans were not repaid in full until his book made money.

Posted by: phx8 at January 10, 2012 10:08 PM
Comment #334318

“For a “black boy” on welfare, he came up with some big bucks for Ivy League schools.

He paid in cash Tom and it has been reported that the money smelled of sulphur.

That’s right, the American dream, a black boy goes from humble beginnings to the White House and Tom T. thinks that accomplishment is nothing compared to the white boy that was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Posted by: jlw at January 10, 2012 11:31 PM
Post a comment