2012 republican presidential nominee III: can romney get santorum out of his hair?

David Atkins at digby's blog posted this rather long thing about what terrifies conservatives. I'm not sure I agree with his conclusions.

But that would be a mistake that overlooks one pivotal fact: devastating realignments don't usually happen overnight, but rather slowly. FDR's presidency was more the exception than the rule. True, progressives had many reasons to hope that Obama's election would mean an FDR-style reversal, coming as it did on the heels of a major economic downturn clearly caused by conservative economic policies. The President's own tendency toward an obsession with grand political compromises certainly hasn't helped. On the other hand, President Obama has a far more conservative legislature with a much more sluggishly corrupt system to deal with than did FDR.

In terms of electoral realignments, the election of Barack Obama may rather most closely resemble the election of Richard Nixon. That's not a bad thing, either.

Richard Nixon was the beginning of the conservative realignment. Barry Goldwater lost, and lost badly. But he ignited the movement conservative coalition. The Goldwater conservatives upended the establishment and elected Richard Nixon. The parallels between Goldwater and Howard Dean, and Nixon and Obama are striking in this regard.

But as with Obama and the left, Nixon disappointed his movement conservatives. He wasn't the man they had hoped he would be. He founded the EPA, opened trade relations with China, almost passed a more progressive health law than the ACA, and much more besides. He was a total paranoid crook tactically and personally speaking, but from a public policy standpoint he was actually fairly liberal even for his time (to say nothing of today.) But that doesn't mean that he and his Southern Strategy weren't the harbinger of an enduring, half-century long coalition that remains politically vibrant, even dominant, to this day.

The same can be said for Barack Obama. No, he hasn't been as progressive as many liberals of the Howard Dean persuasion, myself included, would have liked. But his very existence--and more importantly, of the electoral coalition that sent him to the Oval Office as well as the younger, hipper, more urban, more multiracial, more cosmopolitan political ethic he represents--are here to stay. And not just to stay, but to be the prophet of the dominant political era to come.

Perhaps Barack Obama will not realize the desires and natural policy outcomes that derive from such a coalition. Indeed, he almost certainly will not and can not, any more than Nixon could have implemented the fully formed Reagan agenda back in 1971. But he has done much. And the next president elected by this coalition will do more, and the next one after that will do even more than the one that came before, until in 25 years, even a Republican president will be significantly more liberal than any Democrat in 2008. Conservatives understand this, even if only at a deep-seated level in the darkest fathoms of their collective angst.

This election, then, is about much more than Barack Obama. For conservatives, It's about putting back in the genie's bottle the coalition that the election of 2008 began to unleash. It's about reverting America back to a time when the Nixon coalition was still comfortably in charge--whether it elected Republicans like Reagan or Democrats like Clinton.

lol j/k fuck those guys i hope the end of the world starts in Tampa

xxpost

But his very existence--and more importantly, of the electoral coalition that sent him to the Oval Office as well as the younger, hipper, more urban, more multiracial, more cosmopolitan political ethic he represents--are here to stay. And not just to stay, but to be the prophet of the dominant political era to come.

yeah remains to be seen...

while the election is obviously obama's to lose, he still could and I'd rather Romney catch the fumble than Santorum. That's the reason I couldn't vote for Santorum, even if I'm glad Romney's spring is being ruined.

i wonder how different they'd be tbh.

they're both pretty slimey

Atkins is indulging in wishful thinking. Then again, pundits feel they are required to know what the future will hold. I make confident predictions, too, but rarely anything as major as a total realignment of politics, based on half-assed analogies to the 1960s.

It is actually amazing to me that the idea of a vote representing and signaling your real, true beliefs has remained so durable. Like it's a window into your soul or something.

it's actually an ethical question which I know is very lol for some people. not practical ethics but ethics-ethics.

I admit that I've lost some faith in American voters, but while I can see the possibility of Romney beating Obama, I have to assume that there is absolutely no fucking way Rick Santorum could win the presidency.

Santorum vs Obama would certainly "sharpen the contrasts".

I have to assume that there is absolutely no fucking way Rick Santorum could win the presidency.

lol George W. Bush served two terms in case you missed it & that guy was a total idiot

i believe that obama's got it locked enough that i feel no need to campaign FOR romney, definitely. but, chance of Obama screwing up royally aside, I'd rather hear Romney's quimby-isms from the podium than Santorum's idiotic evangelism.

George W. Bush never said he wanted to outlaw contraception IIRC

GWB had money.

bizarre to me how much some of you guys are eager to overlook the basic financial math of this election

meaning

GWB you wanted to have a beer with. Name any soldier that would enjoy a visit from Rick Santorum while recuperating at Walter Reed.

Oderus Urungus, Lord of Earth and lead singer of GWAR, sends a strong endorsement of murdering every presidential candidate on a gigantic wheel of over-sized knives. Though Urungus, a several-century old extraterrestrial, is not technically an American citizen, we felt it wise to publish his endorsement and add him to the list nonetheless. His statement follows:

For some time people have been harping on me to sound off on my opinions regarding the upcoming Presidential elections, and to state my endorsement of a paticular candidate. Never one to shy away from cheap publicity, for some reason I did. The reason? Simply put, all the offered choices are so nauseatingly banal that there is no flavor I favor. I hate all of them, and their institutions make me sick. They all suck so bad that I cannot begin to do anything other than reject everything they stand for, and can endorse no party or candidate so much as I heartily cry for their destruction, lust for them to be tasked and scourged with fire and whips, and yearn to see great clouds of insects set upon their genitals, and feast upon their diseased and dripping dick slits and big rotten pussies. Do not vote for them, gather in mobs and attack them in their homes — drag them into the streets and impale them upon a gigantic wheel of over-sized knives, and this goes for Obama too!

Name any soldier that would enjoy a visit from Rick Santorum while recuperating at Walter Reed.

Fred!

comparing Santorum to Bush, for example, is just ridiculous. Bush came from a very well-connected, well-known political family that had an extensive financial network and the backing of the elites of various party cadres (evangelicals, big oil, southerners, foreign policy hawks, etc.) All those people raised a SHIT TON of money for GWB, they fought for every vote. Santorum does not have this. It doesn't matter that he's as stupid as Dubya, he occupies a fundamentally different place in the GOP than Dubya did.

xp

Santorum is like the Buster Bluth of this field. GWB was GOB (obv.)

money doesn't not matter but it's only one form of political support. obama didn't come from a well-connected, well-known political family, neither did clinton.

he occupies a fundamentally different place because nobody likes him and he was a failed one-term senator and he has no charisma.

obama didn't come from a well-connected, well-known political family, neither did clinton.

Obama raised more money than McCain. Santorum is not raising more money than anybody, except maybe Ron Paul.

right, because nobody likes him

obama didn't win because he had more money, however

The financial landscape's so much different now than just a few years ago, you might not need such a broad base to compete. Adelson probably won't switch to Santorum but it's not inconceivable especially if Romney stumbles.

santorum was a two-term senator

he had more money because he was gonna win xp

the most well-financed candidate always wins the presidential election. there is no scenario where Santorum becomes the most well-financed candidate, he simply doesn't have the donor base, and he never will as long as he keeps railing on about contraception and homos and women and whatever else he hates

xp

people donate to people who are gonna win, after a certain point you can only buy so many yard signs. until it becomes legal to actually buy votes again, there is a limit to what you can do with money.

not sure what you're basing that on

there is no limit to what you can do with money.

actual studies that have been done on the subject by people who get paid by universities to study it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KqyLi8UFxw

it's plenty possible for Rick Santorum to become president imo I don't think he really has a chance but it's Obama's campaigning strength that rules him out, not any inherent qualities

lol waht

http://www.acrreform.org/research/does-money-buy-elections/

what are these "inherent qualities" that would make a majority of Americans want to vote for him. no one wants to have a beer with the class nerd from the Xtian Club

money doesn't buy all elections. it does buy presidential elections though.

no, it buys presidential elections least of all

given enough money and the right campaign team Santorum could get elected president easy imo. he won't get enough money & the right's too disorganized to get it together for him but the thing stopping Santorum from becoming prez isn't "people are too smart to elect Rick Santorum"

iatee when was the last presidential election that was won by the candidate with less money

"people are too smart to elect Rick Santorum"

I don't think they're too smart, it's that Santorum is THAT unpleasant

the results of an election are almost always predictable and people aren't gonna donate as much to the candidate who is likely to lose. obama had a huge warchest left over, why, because you just run out of shit you can buy.

Does money buy Presidential elections or does a winning bid bring in more money in search of more favors from the victor?

I don't know if you were around for Dick Nixon or not but let me assure you that was the most disagreeable dude like ever & here's what he did in 1968

http://uspoliticsguide.com/images/Presidents-history/1968-electoral-map.gif

the results of an election are almost always predictable and people aren't gonna donate as much to the candidate who is likely to lose.

there's a timescale inherent in this estimation that doesn't make any sense - at what point is the result a foregone conclusion? and is that when the majority of the money starts flowing in? this seems counterintuitive.

and in '72, after being an embarrassment for four years

http://uspoliticsguide.com/images/Presidents-history/1972-electoral-map.gif

I don't know if you were around for Dick Nixon or not but let me assure you that was the most disagreeable dude like ever & here's what he did in 1968

Nixon was owed TONS of favors within his party. "chits" he called them. Nixon was a vociferous and ruthless collector of favors and allegiances, this is well documented. Santorum does not operate this way.

so, to say "Rick Santorum get elected" after looking at that '72 map seems incredibly shortsighted to me, ymmv

*can't