By Krystal Ball, on Wed Mar 28, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
The chance of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich forcing a brokered convention has become quite small. At this point, it is starting to come down to math, so forgive me for a bit of tedious delegate allocation arithmetic. After Illinois, Romney is estimated to have 560 delegates in his column, putting him about halfway to the 1,144 delegates he needs to win the nomination outright. While it is still theoretically possible for Santorum to do well enough to deny him that number, Governor Romney has a few things working in his favor.
First, the remaining states on the whole are more favorable to Romney. New York and California have large numbers of delegates at stake and are both very likely to go for Romney.
Other good Romney states like Maryland, Connecticut, and New Jersey are also among the remaining contests. Second, Romney’s key states tend to allocate their delegates using a winner-take-all method allowing him to quickly rack up delegates, while Santorum’s tend to use proportional allocation (and Gingrich’s key states are nonexistent).
For example, California’s 172 delegates are allocated using winner-take-all while the large state most favorable to Santorum, Texas, uses a proportional allocation process. Other potentially favorable Santorum states using a proportional allocation method include North Carolina, Arkansas, and Kentucky.
Read the rest of… Krystal Ball: Chances of a Brokered Convention Are Small
By John Y. Brown III, on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
How do you know the parent-child relationship has changed?
Forever?
Think of those sweet conversations. Explaining the mysteries of where God lives; of how TV marketing works; reading Catcher in the Rye and smiling knowingly together at the bad words; chatting up sports and politics –as you, the parent, realize he’s closing in on you.
And then one day, there’s a small crack in the universe, and your role as big “P” parent to the little “c” child is whisked away.
For me it was a conversation in our kitchen yesterday.
Child: “So Dad, have you gone through a mid-life crisis yet?”
Parent: “Well…ummm. Well. I guess. I think I have.”
Child: “Think? Uh, it usually happens in your early 40s and your 48”
Parent: “Yeah. No…I uh…I have. Yes. I was in my ….probably late 30s. I was precocious (Laugh)”
Child: “Do you know why you went through a mid-life crisis?”
Parent: “Yeah. I mean…not really. I mean I do from a spiritual standpoint. I mean…look, when you get to mid-life it’s depressing. You either haven’t achieved your dreams so you are depressed. Or you have achieved them and they haven’t brought you the happiness you expected, so you are depressed. And so, you know, you recalibrate your goals and values for the second half of life.”
Child: “No, that’s not why. That’s an interesting explanation but the real reason is menopause.”
Parent: “Male menopause?”
Child: “No! Female menopause. There is a high correlation between when wives go through menopause and when men go through mid-life crisis. You are good with psychological theories but that’s the scientific explanation.”
Parent: “Well, but I had mine and mom hasn’t…I mean. What is menopause anyway? Exactly? I mean, I know …sort of but….the exact, precise, scientific definition of menopause?”
I’m half admiring and half-critical of Rule and Ruin, Geoffrey Kabaservice’s exploration of the decline of moderates as a political force in the Republican Party. On the admiring side, he dusts off an important, and mostly forgotten, phase in the turbulent sixties, when centrist Republicans simultaneously rescued civil rights legislation and fashioned a critique of bureaucratic liberalism that has held up well over the last four decades. Not only is it a vivid account of the era’s characters, it’s a valiant reminder that the unrestrained growth of both government and the safety net can be criticized for reasons that don’t contain a racist or hard-hearted foundation.
Click on book jacket to review
On the critical side, an elegant narrative that is balanced and reserved in its political assessments for about 300 pages turns rushed and simplistic in its last hundred pages. Kabaservice on the post-Nixon era buys and re-sells the stock line that Reagan Republicans pulled the GOP away from its moorings to a right-wing fantasy-land, and that intemperate ideologues have refashioned the party in a way that has steadily erased any moderates or even thoughtful conservatives. It’s hardly wrong to fault the philosophical intolerance that does exist on the Right, but Kabaservice’s frustration with it leads him to minimize other large factors: first, the book has too little to say about the numerous centrifugal forces in American life that have pulled both the left and right away from the middle, including the surge of grassroots, cause based fundraising; the aggregation of special interests on both sides; and the explosion of a cable culture that profits off polarization. Any one of these developments is a book-length project, and the limited attention Kabaservice gives them puts too much weight on the machinations of politicians and kingmakers at the expense of forces much bigger than they were.
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: Where Have All the Moderates Gone?
You all raise some great points and I think Christie, Condi, and Bobby Jindal all have promise.
BUT it’s Rubio.
Here are the reasons that guide my thinking:
1. Top Notch Political Athlete
I may not share Rubio’s ideological beliefs, but I recognize his abilities a political athlete. Specifically, Rubio is a dynamic speaker. Don’t discount the importance of this skill – especially in the youtube/internet era.
It was Barack Obama’s dynamic speech at the 2004 Democratic convention that put him on the map for President – before he was even elected to the U.S. Senate. Although Rubio began his campaign for the U.S. Senate as the underdog in polls and funding to Charlie Crist, Rubio’s team harnessed his speaking ability to level the playing field and ultimately force Crist out of the Republican party.
While Rubio’s ability as a speaker was not the only factor in that campaign, it played a critical role and it is something the Romney campaign should consider as a potential asset.
As a Democrat, it’s Rubio’s speaking ability that concerns me most. It seems distant after a term as President, but in the 2006 midterm elections candidates in swing states were begging then-Senator Obama to campaign for them. I hate to admit it, but Rubio has similar appeal. He’s able to speak about his conservative values in a way that can persuade independents and swing state voters.
2. Rubio Shores up Romney’s Weaknesses
Rubio’s almost the exact opposite of Romney. He stands his ground as a pretty consistent conservative who seeks to persuade, rather than pander.
Remember Charlie Crist? Crist had the same knock on him as Romney – a compulsive panderer with little conviction or loyalty. Part of Rubio’s appeal in that race was because he drew such a stark contrast to Crist. Interestingly enough, the same contrast Rubio draws to Romney may be just what the Romney campaign needs.
Read the rest of… The RPs Debate the 2012 GOP VP: Jimmy Dahroug Antes Up
Discussing VP picks is kind of like selecting your lunch for a business meeting the day before. You want to get excited about it but it’s difficult.
I had assumed Santorum would be the natural pick because it seems to work on paper even though it’s entirely predictable, lacks imagination or boldness and likely won’t work. Because that seems to be Romney’s MO for decision making.
And since I can’t remember a republican primary where the party faithful have strained harder to avoid a nominee, it’s hard to have the confidence to start treating Mitt as the heir apparent nominee for speculative VP purposes. But it appears to be time. At least mathematically.
I like Mark Nickolas’ pick a lot. Mike Huckabee would be to Mitt Romney everything Sarah Palin was supposed to be to John McCain but without the downside. And, unlike Palin, Huckabee wouldn’t appear to be a Hail Mary choice. Huckabee would energize the base, especially Evangelicals. But his appeal is much broader than merely Evangelicals. And perhaps the most important advantage Huckabee brings, as Mark Nickolas stated, is the “likeability” factor, something Romney lacks (and no presidential candidate these days can afford to be without).
Drilling a little deeper, it’s not that Romney is “disliked.” I just feel people are neutral toward him as a candidate on a personal level, which can be the death knell for a presidential candidate. Love or hate the candidate, but don’t be indifferent to him or her personally. Romney’s besetting sin is an inability to connect personally with voters. Huckabee’s greatest gift is the ability to connect with about anyone who shows up in his orbit.
Read the rest of… The RPs Debate the 2012 GOP VP: John Y. Brown III Jousts
Agree with Jonathan et al that, left to his own devices, Romney would pick Portman. Nothing screams competence, or boring white guy, louder. The problem is that Romney’s main thrust will be to run against big government/trillion-dollar deficits, and tapping the GWB OMB guy, as Mark notes, isn’t the best way to drive that message. More importantly, since Romney has amply demonstrated over the last 6 years that he’ll do or say absolutely anything to win, I think he’ll listen when his advisers counsel him that Portman doesn’t bring enough pizzazz or oomph to the ticket. As for Jonathan’s claim that Portman is “beloved by the base,” he’s right if we’re talking about the base, circa-1965. This is not your grandfather’s Republican party. It’s not even your big brother’s.
Agree with Mark that Huckabee would be a great pick and would attract the evangelicals who are approximately as excited about Mitt as they would be about a 20-mile barefoot walk across hot coals to get a colonoscopy. Disagree with Mark that a Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe pick is Mitt’s best chance. I think it’s his best chance to spark a third-party style rebellion on his right flank that he can’t contain which could distract him throughout the fall and cripple his chances.
Agree with John Johnson that Nikki Haley has an intriguing profile. Many Americans will also be intrigued when they read about her past controversies, which you can do by simply Googling “Nikki Haley” and seeing what the first suggestion is. Based on the first-hand, published accounts of a couple prominent South Carolina Republican politicos, her exploits could make another Southern Governor, 1992-era Bill Clinton, look like a piker in comparison.
Agree w/ Ron that Allen West has an interesting profile but the last thing gaffe-plagued Mitt needs right now is a loose cannon. Too much of a wildcard.
Agree w/ Artur that Mitt needs to go long. And Condi Rice is sure intriguing on a lot of levels. Disagree that her open pro-choice stance would be a “mini-furor” that would quickly go away. Since the base doesn’t trust that former Planned Parenthood donor Romney is truly pro-life, I can’t imagine them swallowing a pro-choicer as the #2. I think she creates lingering base problems throughout the fall.
Rubio won’t survive a vetting, I don’t think. Not b/c of the Mormon thing or even the possible contradictions in his family narrative, but b/c of his money-grubbing/sketchiness as FL House Speaker and on the way there. Lots of stories bubbling up from friends of mine who served with him in the Leg down there.
I wouldn’t be so quick to rule out Jindal or Martinez, though Romney will surely vet them far more rigorously than Palin was vetted. Martinez lets him check a lot of boxes and potentially helps in at least three swing states, NM, CO, and FL. I’d be interested to see what the vetting on her turns up, and no doubt so will Romney.
I’ve heard Jindal speak twice and was extremely impressed. Since he’s been in public life basically his whole adulthood w/o a whiff of scandal – he ran Louisiana’s hospital system at age 25 (!) – I actually think he may be able to survive a vetting. That’s one upside of having outsized ambitions from a young age: he seems to have lived a very upstanding life. And Mitt would love Jindal’s Bain-esque discipline and “Mr. Fix-It” style. A guy who competently managed 40 percent of a mid-sized state’s budget at age 25 is a Romney wet dream. Also I think Jindal could energize the base and we know Tea Partiers love to be able to say “Look! I’m not racist!” (See, e.g., Herman Cain/Allen West.) Last, he could tap into an awful lot of presently untapped Indian-American donations.
Read the rest of… The RPs Debate the 2012 GOP VP: Jeff Smith Salutes
First choice for Mitt Romney’s VP should be the Dos Equis “Most Interesting Man in the World.”
This move would balance out the ticket.
If he is unavailable for VP…I would suggest Mitt’s people try to schedule a weekend trip with him pronto.
After this, I believe Romney should pick a woman as his VP. If he does do this, I wouldn’t be surprised whatsoever if President Obama makes a call to Hillary.
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
Featured below is perhaps the funniest outtakes video I’ve seen.
Along with a “Viewer’s Warning” I’d like to see:
Warning: (The unedited version). There is inappropriate language and suggestive themes. Not recommended for viewers under age 17 or over age 56.
There are a few between the ages of 17 and 56 who will pretend to be offended if they watch. But they will actually find the video very funny and will be the most likely to watch it multiple times. Isn’t it always like that? The reason for their feigned shock is probably because the character played by Will Ferrell reminds them of a family member, perhaps an uncle they have tried to forget.
They really need to get over it. Their uncle isn’t really a bad man. Just confused and misguided. He’s actually doing the best he can and does have some redeeming qualities and can be fun to be around (albeit in short spurts) if these people would stop judging him so harshly and try to get to know him a little better. But don’t hold your breath for that to ever happen.
Anyway, if you are between 17 and 56, you’ll probably enjoy this video. If you are one of those who don’t enjoy it and find it offensive, please keep it to yourself and don’t ruin it for the rest of us. Thank you.
The chance of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich forcing a brokered convention has become quite small. At this point, it is starting to come down to math, so forgive me for a bit of tedious delegate allocation arithmetic. After Illinois, Romney is estimated to have 560 delegates in his column, putting him about halfway to the 1,144 delegates he needs to win the nomination outright. While it is still theoretically possible for Santorum to do well enough to deny him that number, Governor Romney has a few things working in his favor.
Other good Romney states like Maryland, Connecticut, and New Jersey are also among the remaining contests. Second, Romney’s key states tend to allocate their delegates using a winner-take-all method allowing him to quickly rack up delegates, while Santorum’s tend to use proportional allocation (and Gingrich’s key states are nonexistent).
