That's not much of a collapse. Romney's still the likely nominee, and he has significantly better electability than the alternatives. If electability weren't an issue, Santorum would be the best of the remaining options. But American voters are too irresponsible to be trusted with a choice between Santorum and Obama. Because of how undiscerning the voters are, Republicans should choose Romney as the nominee. The long term objective should be to establish a conservative majority, so that we don't have to keep trying to get so many votes from independents and Democrats. But that will most likely take a long time and a lot of effort. We're not there yet, and we're not even close.
Once Romney is the nominee, there should be a lot of focus on surrounding him with conservatives, on his campaign, in his cabinet, and in Congress. That will motivate him to live up to the conservative platform he's running on and perhaps even exceed it.
I saw the favorable/unfavorable polls on Obama, Romney and Gingrich. While Romney and Obama are about tied, Gingrich's unfavorable ratings are much higher. He has significant baggage.
I agree with Jason, Romney is probably our best bet even though people may perceive him as an ultra-rich guy who hides money offshore to avoid paying taxes on it.
"Romney's still the likely nominee, and he has significantly better electability than the alternatives."
I don't know about that. I hear that claim being made and I'm not convinced.
And in my decision-making calculus on who to vote for in the GOP primary, how much weight should I give to the disputed notion of "electability"?
Personally, I'd rather have Santorum be the GOP candidate and to really give the American voting public a real choice between a principled conservative and a leftist liberal incumbent.
I think Santorum can win and beat Obama. And if he loses, I'd rather lose with him than with RINO Romney.
As Saint and Sinner mentioned, we have evidence for the electability of these candidates from polling data. We can also make judgments based on what seems likely to happen if a particular person becomes the nominee, what's happened in previous elections, etc. I've addressed some of Santorum's electability problems in previous threads. Saying that electability is "disputed" isn't enough. You should address the arguments.
A term like "RINO" is too vague in this context. Do you think the platform Romney is running on isn't conservative? That it's conservative, but that he'd govern non-conservatively if elected? What's the significance of objecting to something like homosexual marriage in Massachusetts if the evidence suggests that Romney would oppose homosexual marriage if elected president?
Romney is running as a conservative. If elected, there would be a lot of factors in place motivating him to govern as a conservative. His past departures from conservatism are problematic. They diminish his trustworthiness. But the other factors I've mentioned have to be taken into account as well.
"Saying that electability is "disputed" isn't enough. You should address the arguments."
Sorry, "disputed" was not a good choice of terms. I rather mean to convey that the notion of "electability" is somewhat fluid and "malleable" in a turbulent primary and presidential campaign.
Who's considered "electable" now might not be later.
And who's considered "unelectable" now might be considered "electable" later.
Any of the four remaining GOP candidates are preferable to Obama.
ReplyDeleteOf the four GOP candidates left, I hope Santorum gets it.
As a theological/political conservative I'd rather put up a principled conservative like Santorum than a RINO.
That's not much of a collapse. Romney's still the likely nominee, and he has significantly better electability than the alternatives. If electability weren't an issue, Santorum would be the best of the remaining options. But American voters are too irresponsible to be trusted with a choice between Santorum and Obama. Because of how undiscerning the voters are, Republicans should choose Romney as the nominee. The long term objective should be to establish a conservative majority, so that we don't have to keep trying to get so many votes from independents and Democrats. But that will most likely take a long time and a lot of effort. We're not there yet, and we're not even close.
ReplyDeleteOnce Romney is the nominee, there should be a lot of focus on surrounding him with conservatives, on his campaign, in his cabinet, and in Congress. That will motivate him to live up to the conservative platform he's running on and perhaps even exceed it.
I saw the favorable/unfavorable polls on Obama, Romney and Gingrich. While Romney and Obama are about tied, Gingrich's unfavorable ratings are much higher. He has significant baggage.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jason, Romney is probably our best bet even though people may perceive him as an ultra-rich guy who hides money offshore to avoid paying taxes on it.
"Romney's still the likely nominee, and he has significantly better electability than the alternatives."
ReplyDeleteI don't know about that. I hear that claim being made and I'm not convinced.
And in my decision-making calculus on who to vote for in the GOP primary, how much weight should I give to the disputed notion of "electability"?
Personally, I'd rather have Santorum be the GOP candidate and to really give the American voting public a real choice between a principled conservative and a leftist liberal incumbent.
I think Santorum can win and beat Obama. And if he loses, I'd rather lose with him than with RINO Romney.
Romneycare. Gay marriage in Massachusetts. Bleah.
Truth Unites... and Divides,
ReplyDeleteAs Saint and Sinner mentioned, we have evidence for the electability of these candidates from polling data. We can also make judgments based on what seems likely to happen if a particular person becomes the nominee, what's happened in previous elections, etc. I've addressed some of Santorum's electability problems in previous threads. Saying that electability is "disputed" isn't enough. You should address the arguments.
A term like "RINO" is too vague in this context. Do you think the platform Romney is running on isn't conservative? That it's conservative, but that he'd govern non-conservatively if elected? What's the significance of objecting to something like homosexual marriage in Massachusetts if the evidence suggests that Romney would oppose homosexual marriage if elected president?
Romney is running as a conservative. If elected, there would be a lot of factors in place motivating him to govern as a conservative. His past departures from conservatism are problematic. They diminish his trustworthiness. But the other factors I've mentioned have to be taken into account as well.
"Saying that electability is "disputed" isn't enough. You should address the arguments."
ReplyDeleteSorry, "disputed" was not a good choice of terms. I rather mean to convey that the notion of "electability" is somewhat fluid and "malleable" in a turbulent primary and presidential campaign.
Who's considered "electable" now might not be later.
And who's considered "unelectable" now might be considered "electable" later.
Things can change suddenly in politics.