Romney has flip-flopped on everything. The reason he hasn't backtracked in the last few years is because he's already far to the right on everything. He's just not charismatic, he's very blatant, desperate, and he has a tin ear, repeatedly bragging about his wealth for no apparent reason (joking that he's also unemployed, casually betting 10K).

Gingrich is and was too self-destructive and pompous to get the nomination, so that means there's no one left. Santorum is supposedly surging now, but I doubt that will go anywhere.

Romney will have endless money, and the support of the media. He will also have a lot of flashy and well-financed candidates going for Congress and the statehouses who can back him up and get out the vote. This race is his to lose - if he doesn't win President next November then it's all down to his many flaws as a candidate.

Edited December 29, 201113 yr by CarlD2

As for Nikki Haley, I think she mostly just lucked out, running in the right year, and then the attacks against her were seen as sexist and offensive. She was a protege of an unpopular governor, and as with many politicians, she has realized that being governor is very different than running to be governor. South Carolina is a state where bitter infighting pervades everything - the Republicans are divided and have been for a long time. She just seems like a rookie and most likely she will be bounced in the next primary. If their slate of candidates weren't so poor she would have never had the nomination in the first place.

Haley destroyed herself when she almost fumbled a deal to get Amazon in the state by lining up a deal bring more Wal-Mart stores to the state of SC.

Romney's own political history(ie health care) will be his Achilles' Heel. The candidates brought in from the GOP this year have been all quite odd. Gingrich is past his prime and resigned from office in disgrace. Santorum, who's seen some growth lost his own Senate re-election. Romeny himself didn't bother to run for re-election out of fear of his party's weak condition at time.

Romney will have endless money, and the support of the media.

Obama will raise more money than Romney, and the only media that will be supporting Romney are talk radio and outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch. (Last time I checked, that still constitutes a minority of the media.) Obama is incompetent, but much of the media will still be talking about what a "likeable" guy he is, that he's "the only adult in the room," and that he's a champion of the 99% (despite taking money from the 1%). Additionally, they will focus on how "extreme" the entire Republican Party has become and how everything is the fault of Bush, Congress, or the Tea Party.

Edited December 29, 201113 yr by Max

I'm not sure the media has ever painted him as likeable. The stories they like to tell are that he's cold, remote, etc.

NBC and ABC would love someone like Romney. They are full of Republican-leaning outlets and views. Their biggest fantasy is a "moderate" Republican, and even though Romney is hard right on everything, he still fits their view of some kindly tough guy.

I'm not sure the media has ever painted him as likeable. The stories they like to tell are that he's cold, remote, etc.

Only very rarely have I seen the mainstream media paint him this way. Usually, it is the exact opposite.

NBC and ABC would love someone like Romney. They are full of Republican-leaning outlets and views. Their biggest fantasy is a "moderate" Republican, and even though Romney is hard right on everything, he still fits their view of some kindly tough guy.

Can't speak for ABC, but Brian Williams seems to be a huge Obama lover who is in awe whenever he interviews the president. One night on his broadcast, Williams told his audience the breaking news that the president had the ability to stop a baby from crying (and showed of clip of a baby who stopped crying the moment Barry held it in his arms). On another broadcast, Williams praised the "do-nothing" Congress (the implication being that they are primarily responsible for the awful economy) for actually managing to erect a Christmas tree this year.

Edited December 29, 201113 yr by Max

I'm not sure how talking about a do-nothing Congress is pro-Obama. Even most Republicans would probably say that.

I'm not sure how talking about a do-nothing Congress is pro-Obama. Even most Republicans would probably say that.

The reason why most Republicans would say this is a do-nothing Congress is because their plans stall in the Democratic Senate. However, given the way Obama and the media villify Congress, I wouldn't be surprised if many people are under the impression that the GOP controls that chamber as well. McConnell seems to get far more airtime than Reid, and it is often about how obstructionist he is to the president's "progressive, pro-middle class" agenda.

Making Congress the enemy is a big help to Obama, because he can switch the subject from his own record of incompetence. Harry Truman demonized Congress when he ran for a full-term in 1948, and it worked for him. Chris Matthews and others have applauded Obama for following the same strategy. The only difference--of course--is that the GOP actually controlled both the House and the Senate in 1948. (Again, Obama and his supporters never seem to point out the fact that the Democrats control the Senate, and it looks like many are ignorant enough to believe Congress is completely controlled by Republicans.)

Edited December 29, 201113 yr by Max

The reason why most Republicans would say this is a do-nothing Congress is because their plans stall in the Democratic Senate.

That's the party line, but as the payroll tax fiasco proved, even when a plan passes the Senate, it will die in the House. Various Republican senators had to call out their own party because of the stupidity of stamping their feet.

(Again, Obama and his supporters never seem to point out the fact that the Democrats control the Senate, and it looks like many are ignorant enough to believe Congress is completely controlled by Republicans.)

Obama is derided by many in his party because they feel he runs against Congress and does not do enough to support Democrats in the Senate.

Republicans in Congress bragged that their sole goal was to make sure Obama wasn't re-elected. I'm not really sure where Obama is supposed to go after this. He still went on, and on, and on some more, about the glory of bipartisanship, and the grand deal - which always seemed to involve capitulating to the far right. Only recently has he whispered occasionally about Republican obstructionism.

I'm not really sure where Obama is supposed to go after this. He still went on, and on, and on some more, about the glory of bipartisanship

Obama loves to talk about bipartisanship, but back when the Republicans had slim minorities in both the House and Senate, he never asked for Republican input on health care reform (and only sought advice Congressional Democrats). (The president did, however, invite Republicans to golf outings and to a White House Super Bowl party, so I guest that counts as bipartisanship.) It wasn't even until the Summer of 2010 that Obama first reached out to McConnell.

Edited December 29, 201113 yr by Max

Obama loves to talk about bipartisanship, but back when the Republicans had slim minorities in both the House and Senate, he never asked for Republican input on health care reform (and only sought advice Congressional Democrats). (The president did, however, invite Republicans to golf outings and to a White House Super Bowl party, so I guest that counts as bipartisanship.) It wasn't even until the Summer of 2010 that Obama first reached out to McConnell.

We sure remember that differently.

I remember him going on and on about bipartisanship, which the Republicans were not interested in. The Republicans said they didn't care about a goal beyond Obama losing. I'm not sure of the logic in waiting for them even longer when they already bragged about how they had no plans.

Back when Reid and Pelosi ruled Congress with iron fists, this was Obama's idea of bipartisanship:

http://www.foxnews.c...epublicans-sit/

He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

If a Republican ever said Obama should ride in the back, I can only imagine all the whining the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world would have done.

That was about two weeks before the elections, when Congress was pretty much done.

And, Republicans, under W.'s presidency, did drive the economy over a cliff. We are still dealing with the aftermath three years later of the last POTUS's decisions at that time.