I'm on record as thinking that Hillary is the only person who can lose this race for the Democrats.
And if Hillary is the nominee, Mitt is the only person who is nearly guaranteed to lose this race for the Republicans. He's the H2 of the Republican camp.
What goes through the mind of primary voters? Can someone 'splain me, please? Using small words and lots of pictures?
Uhh, the primary voters didn't get instructions from the people who threw their wine glasses at the teevee when Hillary beat Obama in New Hampshire?
"What goes through the mind of primary voters?"
....Wellllll, I sure liked his daddy as guv'nor, how bad can his son be? I mean George Bush's son's done a heckuva job down there in Washington, DC.
-I think that about sums it up. As for Hillary- pretty much the same logic, except substitute wife for son. That and also the fact that Dems have a revenge fantasy with regards to Bush similar to the revenge fantasy Republicans had in 2000 with regards to Bill Clinton.
If it comes down to Romney v. Clinton, just like 2000 and 2004, it will be about turnout and independents. The two parties will hold their noses and vote their party. Independents will hold their nose and vote Romney.
GOP holds onto the White House and the Clintons realize the biggest mistake of their political lives was her presidential bid.
Don't be such a snob.
You surprise me, Megan.
What goes through their minds is what goes through most people's minds when voting in the primaries..."Which one of these candidates would make the best POTUS?". Shocking, eh!
Just because you don't like who they vote for, doesn't make them idiots.
I agree about Romney. I just don't understand how conservatives can support this guy. He'll say whatever gets him votes. He reminds me of Bill Clinton in that regard.
If John McCain is the nominee, though, the Democrats will be in trouble.
what goes throught their minds? "What I do, doesn't affect anyone but me..." followed somewhat later by: "is this person even electable?" and then "but everyone else available is an idiot..."
bill the cat and Opus for president! 'cuz it'll take both of them, dude!
No...If McCain is the nominee, the Democrats will be delighted. They get an anti-free market, anti-First amendment Statist as president no matter who wins.
Hey SwissArmyD, I agree, how come no ones drafted Bill the Cat yet???
In small words:
well, gee, I think Giuilani obviously can't be Hillary, since he couldn't before, and Hill's friends in NY will know where all his bodies are buried. I think McCain is old and mean when provoked and will look frightening old and nasty, unable to articulate anything to make the Rep base show up to vote for him, and on social issues, his "constituents" would rather vote for the Dem. Thompson didn't bother to campaign. Huckabee? You think people would rather vote for another corrupt Arkansas governor? At least they know the first one is smart and has experience being president.
So who does that leave me? It leaves me Romney, with exec experience, the right answers on the global jihad, at least some credibility on health care, and a nice, happy, pleasant demeanor. You may think his "aw shucks" rubs you the wrong way, but it's a lot better than the smirks we had at the last debates, and it's a lot better than the other alternatives.
He's the H2 of the Republican camp
Ok, I'm being dense here. Is this supposed to mean he's the deuterium of the Republicans? If so, what the heck does that metaphor stand for?
Or do you mean he's the Hummer 2? (I still don't quite get the metaphor)
I actually think Romney would be the best Republican nominee vs. Hillary (both have unappealing personalities; then it becomes a "free market" vs. "socialism" debate, with Hillary assuming the role of the tired incumbent). Though I suppose you can't discount Mormon prejudice and Hillary going hard after the woman/historic vote.
Source: http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/56375486-5a44-49eb-b0ff-7002afd5d0bf
Megan is arguing both that Hillary is the weakest Democratic candidate, and that Romney is the weakest Republican candidate. I'm not sure I buy the first half of that, but the second is plausible, and there is polling data to support it.
(Why do I think Hillary may not be the weakest candidate? She's hated by much of the electorate, but most of the people who hate her wouldn't vote for any other Democratic candidate either. And such hatred among opponents can lead to problems, as Democrats discovered in the 2004 election...)
Quite right, I’m planning to vote for Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday. In making my decision among a rather impressive field of well-qualified (read: people who actually have executive experience and/or accomplished more with their lives than serving a single term in the United States Senate), I think he’s probably the closest to my views on the issues, has an impressive grasp of the details of very complex policy questions, has an impressive record of personal accomplishment, and would stand the best chance in dealing with a Democrat Congress at a time when we will still be a nation at War, when the first of the baby boom generation begins to draw on Social Security and Medicare, and when we will have probably two vacancies on the Supreme Court while resisting growth-killing tax and regulatory increases.
I’d be curious to see if Megan will be making a comperable argument for her choice in Barack Obama.
"He'll say whatever gets him votes."
I'm curious... who doesn't this apply to?
Our system is really especially screwed up right now because there are no successful national 3rd parties and yet the major parties only garner about 1/4 of the electorate. So the fringe at the edges picks the two candidates that the bulk in the middle then decide over. Every primary has this sort of problem, but it's much worse now, and only getting worse because these sorts of shenanigans only drive people away from either party.
Okay, so maybe I'm a snob too, but I think Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney (and McCain and Huckabee, too), have based their appeal for votes using the same theories as the people who put together the covers for Us Weekly. Drama, bathos, victimhood, combined with unfathomable wealth and a knack for being photographed with other celebrities. Hillary gets the "What that woman has been through!" voters.
Mitt won't be able to carry his victimhood through the primaries like Hillary can, however. He is a one-state sympathy-vote-getter. His equivalent of the working women of New Hampshire is the auto industry. This great conservative, beloved of so many conservative pundits, won Michigan by promising to leverage the federal government on behalf of the auto industry. How'd he slip "industrial policy " past the National Review and Hugh Hewitt?
I'm not sure who I would vote for in a primary, but I do think that among the Republicans Mitt Romney would be the least likely to screw up massively in whatever he does. I'm not sure the "least likely to screw up massively" test is the right one, but it may be popular among Republicans particularly this year. Then there is the Mormon question, which I think has been asked incorrectly. It isn't whether him being a Mormon is a handicap in the abstract, but whether it is a materially greater handicap than being an African-American or a woman. Not at all clear whether that is the case.
H2. A bit overstated, hmm? 'pubs will happily vote for anyone with executive and management experience over those who have only legislated. It's a nice problem to have, so many able candidates running for a job that is becoming less and less important to the average citizen in any positive sense. If there was a measure of government productivity (output per employee) it's never been lower, and the reward for individual initiative, judgment and risk-taking in the federal agencies never less. Interestingly, the number of federal employees with legal degrees has never been higher. Likely true of those in congress as well.
So most of government can be ignored because it is truly unimportant. We elect those that we think will do the least new damage to the citizens and their enterprise.
I'm not sure why other Democrats favor Hillary Clinton, but in my case and my wife's we think she'd make a better president. She's tough, smart, and hardworking. We also like Obama and Edwards, but we don't see them as being more electable.
Megan,
A better question is why you are supporting Obama over Romney. As an econoblogger, surely you realize that Romney's executive leadership experience and business acumen are superior to those of any of the other candidates in either party. Romney is brilliant, and not just in a lawyerly way -- he is numerate, which is a crucial skill in dealing with issues like the fiscal problems with our entitlements. Romney also has successfully worked with Democrats in the bluest state in the country to accomplish things (e.g., MA's universal health insurance plan).
So what drives you to support a one-term Senator over Romney? Is it your apparent guilt over having gone to a fancy prep school, which greased the skids for your admission to an Ivy League school? Will you feel better if you vote for Obama, whose fancy prep school education also greased the skids for him to go to an Ivy League college (after a year at a tony private college in CA)? Certainly Obama would make a better imaginary hip, black friend, but who would do a better job of running the country?
To answer your question Megan: People are stupid.
Voters, for the most part, don't go into the booth thinking strategically. The ironic thing is that of all the candidates, I think Romney would likely make the best president, but that he has absolutely no chance of winning in November.
I still hope for a McCain victory, but last night was a disaster for his campaign.
"I'm curious... who doesn't this apply to?"-Ryan W
McCain. He went to Iowa and opposed ethanol subsidies. He also supported the Iraq war vocally when it was going badly and its popularity was at rock bottom.
And there are many other examples.
McCain's only saving grace is that he's been saying what the voters want to hear on immigration instead of what he actually thinks. His downfall is that he waited too long to do it.
Same on the Bush taxcuts.