In which I explain why the GOP field sucks even more than usual
Primary tabs
Salon asks, "This is really the best the GOP can do?". The answer to that is a resounding no. They have a number of people who would be better candidates than Rick Perry or Michelle Backman or Herman Cain. They just aren't running this year. There's only one real candidate in the GOP primary and that's Romney. To the extent anyone else has a shot it's only because Romney is weak with the GOP base.
The reason there's only one real candidate in the race is because Obama is sucking up all the money. It's 1991, only instead of having an incredibly popular war president with a 90% approval rate that causes all the heavy D hitters to sit out, you have a guy who has so sucked up to corporate interests and who has been so effective a corporate tool, that he's likely to raise a billion dollars and so all the R heavy hitters are sitting out. Why take that on when you can wait four years for the big money to swing back your way?
So Romney is basically Bill Clinton. A guy who would have little to no chance at winning the nomination if it weren't for the fact so many of the other "real" candidates were sitting out. But because they are sitting out, he's got a chance at the nomination and because the economy sucks, he has a decent shot at winning the presidency, which he will probably never have again.
It also tells us what we can expect from a second Obama administration. His re-election is being bought and paid for by his real constituents, corporate America, especially Wall Street. They are the reason why he's not facing a tougher challenger in a year in which the economy is going to suck (mostly because he chose to service his donors for the first three years). And if Romney should happen to pull an upset, then he'll still service corporate America because he'll need them in 2016.
All of which is to say that when "progressives" celebrate how weak the GOP field is and how insane they are, what they're really celebrating - even if they won't admit it - is that Obama is big money's choice in 2012 (just as he was in 2008). Of course, no one really wants to talk about that for very long. Better to pretend that Herman Cain may someday become President and so let's talk about the ridiculous tax policy he's proposed as if it's anything other than a distraction.
- BDBlue's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
I don't understand the 2012 election
when I look at the Republican field, I don't see how any of them get nominated, not win, I don't see how any of them get nominated. Romney is too Mormon, has a record in Mass. that Republicans don't like. On the other hand, the rest of the field is divided by has beens and public embarrassments.
I don't see how Obama can win with 9.6% unemployment and rising and I don't see how Romney wins when he is being dragged down by the Republican base.
I simply don't see a path to victory for any of these characters.
Another Possibility
Love your analysis, but how does the fact that Wall Street has given more money to Romney than Obama (so far) fit in? I have my own, rather cynical, ideas: Obama's handlers are involved in the Republican nomination process also, so that they can push the agenda even further right. Cain can't win with his 9-9-9, but the fact that he has a platform to even introduce it softens up the opposition and gives his plan some traction. The same can be said for all of the other extremist ideas that the Republican candidates are touting. No, they can't win (though Romney could stage an upset), but they give Obama room to move further right. Occupy Wall Street is a fly in the ointment, though ....
Romney is the quintessential capitalist, of course. He believes that corporations are people and he, along with two others, founded Bain Capital. We do live in interesting times ...
actually I have been thinking along the same lines
Obama's bankster friends are tying to create a no choice choice.
That's essentially what the voters got in 2008--Bush was so
unpopular, it was pretty certain no R candidate would win, so the Wall Street Gang Banksters moved into the Dem primary to ensure Hillary was not the D candidate. Hillary is no flaming liberal, but she was not as right leaning as Barack, at least on domestic issues. The banksters were not interested in her HOLC type plan even being given a national discussion.
The D was going to winin '08. Period. The banksters needed to ensure they had someone in the WH who would protect their interests. They got that.
Either McCain or Obama would have worked for them, but with the prediected Dem majorities in Congress having Obama in was more important than it is this time around. Obama would neuter the left of the Dem Party -- and has done so very effectively and efficiently.
This time, either Romney or Obama will work for them.
Wall Street is Hedging Its Bet?
That's my guess. I think they'd be perfectly happy with Romney, although I still think Obama is their guy (and GE's guy and the MIC's guy). And, for what it's worth, the financial and banking section is actually giving more money to Obama. At least to the extent we can tell these things with all the secret PACs, etc.
Good analysis.
Except I don't think Romney ends up getting the Republican nomination. It will go to whichever wingnut rides the last thirty day media cycle before the early primaries. Herman Cain is about done. It may be possible for one more undeclared fantasy candidate to have a turn, then the non-Romney candidate who catches fire in December and is actually on the ballot in a lot of states gets the nomination.
Although it's unlikely, at this point I think the best outcome we can hope for is Mitt to win it all. We'd basically get exactly the same policies as Obama, but Republicans would get the blame and there might even be a tiny chance for the left to recapture the Democratic party between now and 2016.
But actually I think the most likely outcome in the general is Bloomberg or a similar billionaire running a self-funded fake populist campaign and winning with 34% of the vote. The R's and the D's both suck worse than they ever have in my lifetime. This is the best chance ever for a pure vanity candidacy, and we have plenty of billionaires who could outspend Obama without raising a dime if they really wanted it.
you can't be president with 34% of the vote
The Twelfth Amendment locks in a two party race for president. If no candidate gets a majority of votes in the Electoral College, the House of Representatives selects the President and the Senate selects the Vice-President.
There could be some kind of coalition government.
As absurd as that sounds, it's not impossible. A third-party candidate who won a plurality of the vote could cut a deal with the controlling parties of both the House and the Senate in exchange for granting members of those parties, or even Congressfolk and Senators themselves, seats in his or her cabinet.
I think you can.
I haven't done the math, but I bet you could get a majority of electoral votes with less than 34% of the popular vote by taking large states with a plurality and ignoring small states, which is what a hedge fund billionaire would probably do.