Now that the conventions are done, and there has been some time to absorb their impact, time for another of these:

I've basically been cemented in the view I've had for the past year or so. The Republicans could certainly win with the right candidate. They proceeded to choose the one completely wrong to do it.

Let me put it to you this way, Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan was at least likeable and charming there is nothing charming or likeable about Mitt Romney. I've watched many of the past Republican Candidates for President I've vehemently disagreed with many of them, Mitt Romney frankly is the Worst Candidate the Republican Party has put forward for President since Goldwater in the 1960's. Bob Dole frankly never had a fighting chance in 1996.

Who will win in November? Barbara Dale Washer, obviously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnB0NZzl5HA

Apparently Rasmussen got a call from Karl Rove.

Mitt Romney frankly is the Worst Candidate the Republican Party has put forward for President since Goldwater in the 1960's. Romney's pretty bad, but I don't see him as worse than McCain...and I don't see McCain as worse than Goldwater. Goldwater may have got creamed in the election, but he articulated conservative principles that resonated for decades (he lost the battle of 1964, but won the war of the fourth quarter of the 20th century), whereas McCain (and Romney, if he loses) won't be able to say they accomplished anything but losing an election. McCain was the worst GOP nominee since the days of Alf Landon and Wendell L. Wilkie, and if Romney loses, he'll be right behind him. Although maybe Romney should be counted as worse than McCain (if he loses), simply because 2008 was pretty well destined to be a Democratic victory year, whereas 2012 should be very winnable for the Republicans.

Romney is crashing and burning fast

Mike Huckabee would be doing better Well Huck basically has a Diet version of Rick Santorum but doesn't scare people because he speaks well and makes people comfortable. (Probably why he was a pastor) Mitt Romney frankly is the Worst Candidate the Republican Party has put forward for President since Goldwater in the 1960's. Romney's pretty bad, but I don't see him as worse than McCain...and I don't see McCain as worse than Goldwater. Goldwater may have got creamed in the election, but he articulated conservative principles that resonated for decades (he lost the battle of 1964, but won the war of the fourth quarter of the 20th century), whereas McCain (and Romney, if he loses) won't be able to say they accomplished anything but losing an election. McCain was the worst GOP nominee since the days of Alf Landon and Wendell L. Wilkie, and if Romney loses, he'll be right behind him. Although maybe Romney should be counted as worse than McCain (if he loses), simply because 2008 was pretty well destined to be a Democratic victory year, whereas 2012 should be very winnable for the Republicans. Personally, I would rather have McCain president over Romney anyday. Politically, I think McCain having a lot of respect thanks to his military service and record of bi-partisianship really helped him stay in the top 4 for the primary in '08 and eventually win. He was an idiot when it came to listening to others for VP choices. (Palin) Romney I think is a better candidate for picking VP's that won't embarrass him as much. That was smart and probably his own decision too. But beyond the VP stuff, I don't see Romney any better of a candidate as McCain. In '12, he got grilled by conservatives in the primary just as bad as McCain did in '08, he constantly bugged about tax returns and that makes him look sneaky, he's not a vet so he gets no respect for that stuff except his "patriotic" speeches. He's a Mormon and has to deal with that stuff. So, I don't know, Romney might be the worst the GOP has nominated in recent history. But it's not so much about being the Republican candidate but more about he's from Massachusetts. Face it, America hates Massachusetts politicians. Eh hmm... John Kerry, Mike Dukakis, Ted Kennedy (in the '80 primary). JFK might have been the last truly respected bay stater who ran for President. All these new ones are rich, stiff, boring, and just don't relate at all. Romney is a fine example of this.

I see Randy hasn't voted yet. He's been saying for months Romney will win. Curious to his present thoughts.

Well Huck basically has a Diet version of Rick Santorum but doesn't scare people because he speaks well and makes people comfortable. (Probably why he was a pastor) Yeah, the Rs missed a good opportunity when they shunned Huckabee in 2008 and split the vote enough by having various talk radio Rs back Romney to let McCain squeak though. And that Rasmussen poll is precious.

I see Randy hasn't voted yet. He's been saying for months Romney will win. Curious to his present thoughts. I'm in the Leaning Prediction list as having switched to Slight Obama on 9/12. Still a little nervous about that - there's still time for Romney to recover.

Romney has never given any indication that he is exceptional or talented enough to recover.

No, he hasn't. And that's the only reason why my prediction is slight Obama.

I almost disagree even with the basic premise of Randy's statement, because it sort of assumes Romney was at some point in a position of strength in this campaign. He never has been. There's never been a time at any point whatsoever in this cycle wherein Romney enjoyed a clear advantage over the president. Any leads he's ever held have been fleeting and minute. In this economic environment, that really is a damning commentary on what a weak candidate he is. Even the convention didn't help him. So while it's never a good idea to get overconfident, I can't help but feel pretty good about Obama's chances. Maybe if Romney knocks it out of the park in the debates, but how likely is that? He's a good debater, but he isn't THAT good, and Obama is great in debates too. At best he'll probably hold his own, which isn't going to fundamentally change the game. Romney supporters at this point have to pretty much hope for some giant crisis, which explains why people like Scott are wetting themselves over protests.

Mitt Romney frankly is the Worst Candidate the Republican Party has put forward for President since Goldwater in the 1960's. A Johnson win in '64 was all but guaranteed after Kennedy's assassination (he himself would probably have been re-elected in '64). And the country simply wasn't ready for its third President in as many years.

People like to think that issues like the economy are what drives elections. The key to being elected president is being liked because swing voters choose based on who they want to see on their TV the next four years. On that score, Obama was always going to be difficult to beat regardless of the economy.

I almost disagree even with the basic premise of Randy's statement, because it sort of assumes Romney was at some point in a position of strength in this campaign. ... In this economic environment, that really is a damning commentary on what a weak candidate he is. Then you didn't read or forgot my previous post on my reasoning. In spite of the constant blundering and misfires of Romney and the GOP, the race is still polling close (he's even ahead, according to Rasmussen). As you mentioned, right now the whole economic playing field tilts to him and the GOP and all they have to do is not screw it up, which they keep failing at. I can't believe they are THIS incompetent.

A Johnson win in '64 was all but guaranteed after Kennedy's assassination (he himself would probably have been re-elected in '64). And the country simply wasn't ready for its third President in as many years. This is exactly correct. A Kennedy-Goldwater race would have been more competitive. Three Presidents in 14 months just wasn't going to happen, especially at the height of the Cold War.

And the country simply wasn't ready for its third President in as many years. Three Presidents in 14 months just wasn't going to happen, especially at the height of the Cold War. Nobody gives a shit about this. The reason the Kennedy assassination was important to the 64 election was sympathy, not concern trolling about having too many presidents.

there's also that whole economy thing (1.5% inflation/unemployment under 5%). Kennedy would have smoked Goldwater

And the country simply wasn't ready for its third President in as many years. Three Presidents in 14 months just wasn't going to happen, especially at the height of the Cold War. Nobody gives a shit about this. The reason the Kennedy assassination was important to the 64 election was sympathy, not concern trolling about having too many presidents. Whether American voters admit it or not, they prefer some sense of stability in a tumultuous international state of affairs (a la the Cold War). That's why incumbent Presidents generally are reelected in wartime.

Jimmy Carter lost during the Cold War. Gerald Ford lost during the Cold War. Johnson would most likely having lost had he ran in 1968... During the Cold War. There's a tendency for incumbent Presidents to win re-election regardless of the state of international affairs.

I guarantee you 2008 would have been a much closer election if you guys nominated Huckabee, despite the fact the guy is unabashedly extreme, he knows how to connect with and communicate with people.

...if only because he would have chosen a boring business conservative and not Sarah Palin as his VP. He would have at best gotten a percent higher in the popular vote than McCain, which might have gotten him NC.