1. There’s now almost no chance that the Republicans will take the SENATE now. Despite the large number of seats that are clearly vulnerable from 2006, it looks like the election will be a wash now.
2. The experts who are analyzing the House races are now talking small Democratic gains and cautiously suggesting more.
3. The enthusiasm gap between Romney and Obama has just about evaporated.
4. Bill Kristol has suggested that Romney should step down and the ticket “we deserve” is Ryan-Rubio.
5. The secret message to the rich guys is not being handled by an “I’m sorry, it really was an arrogant and stupid (a moment of weakness) comment that I now have to correct to do justice to the struggles facing ordinary Americans both young and old” from Romney and his guys.
6. Romney’s guys.
7. Romney is going to have to discover and articulate credible and reasonably specific messages on entitlement reform, foreign policy, and repealing ObamaCare (it would be nice to out Obama’s extremism on “the social issues” too) by the debates. It may not be quite enough to notice that Obama said good things about redistribution. (It would be a good beginning to focus on Obama’s promise that anti-American Islamic strife would disappear once he’s elected.)
September 20th, 2012 | 3:08 pm
Well, I thought you guys were his supporters? And, wasn’t he pushed over the finish line by the ‘rich’ guys? I know there’s at least three candidates who’d be doing better and not intimidated with Obama because he’s half-white.
If the GOP can’t beat a Democrat with Comrade Obama’s record, wouldn’t you say the party’s finished and off to Whigland?
Hey, I’ve long rallied on the Tea Party where real conservatism at least has a chance and where people actually discuss politics!
I won’t miss the ineffectual Lincolnites!
September 20th, 2012 | 3:19 pm
Winning the Senate was always a part of the plan for replacing Obamacare that didn’t get talked about enough. If Romney were to win I wonder whether some Blue Dog Dems might could be swayed for an Obamacare repeal and replace bill, if the wind is at the Republicans’ backs.
In terms of game theory, a Catholic who wants to get rid of the HHS contraceptive mandate now has a better chance of having his/her policy objective met than a non-Catholic Repbublican whose policy objective is to get rid of Obamacare. This is because a Congressional repeal of Obamacare will require BOTH a Republican Senate AND a Republican President, while the HHS mandate will only require a Republican President to be elected for a new HHS Commissioner to be appointed (bye bye, Sebelius) and a new rulemaking to be made. A repeal of Obamacare of course would also vitiate the HHS rulemaking power on this issue, but strategically speaking there is a lower certitude of that happening.
September 20th, 2012 | 7:08 pm
CJ’s right. America doesn’t know it, but it’s basically telling some huge fraction of its doctors to take a hike, and some huge fraction of its small business owners to stay tiny perpetually.
But talking about ineffectual Lincolnites is literary politics. Who did the tea-party have that was a contender? And was willing? Who?
September 27th, 2012 | 11:55 am
As the ineffective train rolls on… Why hasn’t it been exposed that Obamacare will force those folks in the 20k range to buy health insurance or pay big fines? There’s something the 47 percent should think about? I could go on…
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact