ChrisWeigant.com

Red State Pessimism?

[ Posted Tuesday, November 8th, 2011 – 16:10 UTC ]

I just read an extraordinary article at (are you sitting down) RedState, written by Erick Erickson -- one of the right-wingiest writers at one of the right-wingiest websites around.

I couldn't help myself -- the title of the article drew me in: "Mitt Romney as the Nominee: Conservatism Dies and Barack Obama Wins."

The author's basic premise is that Romney is a flip-flopper who can't be trusted by conservatives. He'll win the Republican nomination, and then go on to lose to Obama next year. The article (and the hundreds of comments) make fascinating reading.

It bears pointing out: this is not some liberal fantasy written on a left-wing blog. This is exactly the opposite.

It does raise an interesting question, though: if Romney is the nominee, will the Republican base be so disappointed that they either (1.) stay home next November, or (2.) flirt with the third-party route? Or will their desire to unseat Obama overcome such disappointment if Romney is the candidate?

Personally, I'm not sure what to think about this scenario. But I am considering the source -- if conservatives are already grumbling about Mitt being nominated, what's going to happen next year if this plays out?

Call this an "open thread" for discussion (this is a euphemistic way to say "I am too busy digging in libraries today to write a full column, sorry").

What do you think?

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

15 Comments on “Red State Pessimism?”

  1. [1] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    While I've read RedState (about once a week), I haven't been a religious about it because, honestly, the level of sheer wigginess there is off putting. The demonization of everything not circa 1934 conservative is bearing fruit. These guys can't see beyond the echo chamber in which they live. I think Romney will be the candidate. I've been wrong before. I think Romney will lose the presidency because the tinfoil hat brigade represented by Erickson will say that there is no difference between Obama and Romney. But, again, I've been wrong before.

    Can I get a Hallelujah?!!!!

  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    wow, that really was a good article.

    "To beat Barack Obama, a candidate must paint a bold contrast with the Democrats on their policies. When Mitt Romney tries, Barack Obama will be able to show that just the other day Mitt Romney held exactly the opposite position as the one he holds today.

    Voters may not like Barack Obama, but by the time Obama is done with Romney they will not trust Mitt Romney. And voters would rather the guy they don’t like than they guy they don’t trust."

    in truth it seems americans all across the political spectrum are disillusioned by the failure of both parties to serve our interests.

  3. [3] 
    Osborne Ink wrote:

    Note that the problem is not a conservative movement completely out of phase with reality from consuming decades of propaganda, but a candidate who doesn't appeal to said movement because he's too mainstream.

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet22 -

    Yeah, it kind of blew me away, too.

    Osborne -

    Here's a question: do you think the Tea Party is on the wane? Has it "peaked"? I've heard this theory being espoused, but not sure I buy into it yet, personally.

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Osborne Ink wrote:

    Chris: don't doubt it.

    http://wvgazette.com/News/politico/201110240004

    All the polling shows the tea party is a spent force.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/politics/05teaparty.html

  6. [6] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I don't think I've ever seen a primary as dysfunctional as this one.

    I'm really not sure Romney is going to win. I think this may be the year the far right finally wins over the Republican party with Cain.

    Despite his really awful policy ideas. Then he'll lose the general election when people finally find out how bad his ideas are.

    The odd thing is that Republicans are so dissatisfied with the field. You'd think they'd be happy with someone like a Bachmann or a Santorum.

    What I think they really seem to want is someone with the core beliefs of Bachmann who can actually come onstage and fool the average voter with his "likability". That's why I think they'll ultimately choose Cain.

    But man, they're gonna have to play that "media victim" card really hard.

    -David

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    in truth it seems americans all across the political spectrum are disillusioned by the failure of both parties to serve our interests.

    Truer words were never spoken...

    David,

    I don't think I've ever seen a primary as dysfunctional as this one.

    Other than the 2008 Dem one, eh?? :D

    Obama and Clinton put these guys to shame...

    Michale.....

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    DF,

    The demonization of everything not circa 1934 conservative is bearing fruit. These guys can't see beyond the echo chamber in which they live.

    Change '1934 conservative' to '1969 liberal' and your phrase would fit the Left perfectly... :D

    Michale......

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Here's a question: do you think the Tea Party is on the wane? Has it "peaked"? I've heard this theory being espoused, but not sure I buy into it yet, personally.

    That theory is espoused by the same people who thought the Tea Party was a bunch of racist kooks who couldn't influence a rotten avocado..

    The theory is simply more of the same.

    Wish-casting....

    They were wrong then and they'll be wrong now...

    Michale....

  10. [10] 
    akadjian wrote:

    My favorite stat from yesterday which might support the idea that the Republican party is on the wane comes from Facebook:

    We Are Ohio: "No on Issue 2"
    Supporters: 100,267
    Talking About: 15,054

    Building a Better Ohio: "Yes on Issue 2"
    Supporters: 4,627
    Talking About: 1,678

    The Issue 2 movement here in Ohio had virtually no ground support. I saw 1 yard sign the entire campaign. All of their support was from large money out-of-state donors like American Crossroads or from big money in-state donors.

    This is encouraging as in an environment where corporations own the media (all 3 of Ohio's largest newspapers supported Issue 2 - WTF Cleveland Plain Dealer?), strong grassroots organization still enables corporate legislation to be defeated.

    -David

  11. [11] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Michale,

    Once more unto the breech, eh? Liberals in 1968? Nah, try again. The liberals DID defeat a sitting president of their own party, only to lose to the center right coalition of Humpty and Co. Of course, assassinating the front runner with the organization might have had something to do with that also.

  12. [12] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    But of course, the original question was Will the the end up campaigning for Romney, voting for Romney, going 3rd party, or just not voting? With the possibility of advertising whiteout, personal campainging could easily make a big difference.

    Not Voting/3rd party: The diehard Paulies could easily sit this one out or vote 3rd party. Remember, they actually HAVE a Libertarian party. They really don't have a dog in this fight and they don't have the social issues problem with Obama and gay marriage. Hard to see any other actual identifiable portion of the R's going this route. No one wants to be the Right Wing Nader.

    Voting Only: Social issues predominant voters will definitely vote for anyone other than Obama. But how strongly will they campaign? It's hard to see how they could get excited about Romney. They've already lost DADT and DOMA is on life support. Romney is not going to spend political capital trying to resurrect the dead. And they know it.

    Voting with enthusiasm: The business fiscal end of the R's. But then, they're the ones beating the hustings now, and they can't get him above 30% in the pre-primaries.

    Maybe that just goes to show what the pre-primaries is worth after all.

  13. [13] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Has the TP "Peaked"? Obviously, the TP is alive and influential in the pre-primary process. But in the general process? We'll see when the actual voting takes place, but there are two branches of influence.

    In the last elections, you could easily argue that the TP cost conservatives the Senate. Delaware, California, NEVADA, Alaska (ok, half a cost). The kind of candidates that came out of the woodwork were unelectable in any climate. I think the more influential TP background working types are going to try to make sure to limit those types to places where they will do little harm ... like Massachusetts, San Francisco, and Maine. In that respect, the TP has definetly peaked and gone.

    The $$ from the TP is not really all that important to the party as a whole. Big Business more than makes up for any losses in that respect, but TP provides a multitude of foot soldiers who stuff envelopes, walk the streets, make telephone calls, etc. The pervasive influence of having to placate the hoi polloi of the right will be long lasting and profound. Citizens United could easily have brought back the influence of the foot campaigns. The actual legacy of the TP will probably be in this.

    What happens when they die off, tho is another question.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is encouraging as in an environment where corporations own the media (all 3 of Ohio's largest newspapers supported Issue 2 - WTF Cleveland Plain Dealer?), strong grassroots organization still enables corporate legislation to be defeated.

    Great...

    Now more public employees will have to be laid off so that state governments meet budgets..

    But hay!! At least the top 1% of Unions bosses get to keep their cushy salaries and bennies!!

    Let's hear it for the 1%!!!!

    PPPPFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

    Michale.....

  15. [15] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    David [6] -

    To put it another way, you think Cain is going to be the "McGovern" for Republicans this year?

    :-)

    Sorry, Michale, that would be liberals circa 1972, but not that far off from where you pegged them.

    -CW

Comments for this article are closed.