Political Animal
Blog
First of all, howdy to everyone, and thanks to Steve for inviting me. As he said, I’ll be here today and tomorrow. You might know me from “Ten Miles Square” over on the right hand column…well, at any rate, stick around, there’s plenty of ground to cover.
I’ll start with a little light news from GOP WH 2012: Easy to mock former Delaware Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell did not turn anyone into a Newt last night — she instead endorsed Mitt Romney. Thus sparking plenty of sarcasm among liberals in my twitter feed, some of whom paired her with recent Mitt endorser Dan Quayle. It can’t help that she then went on TV this morning and said ” That’s one of the things that I like about him — because he’s been consistent since he changed his mind.” The gist of it all is that it’s a little pathetic for Romney to be touting the support of people that even Tea Partiers couldn’t possibly take seriously.
I disagree! Sure, it’s not as if there are lines of Iowans eagerly seeking O’Donnell’s advice, just waiting for her signal so they know what to do. But that’s not how these things work.
Instead, think about the typical Iowa caucus attendee. She’s fairly attentive to politics, certainly compared to the average general election voter. But she’s also very partisan, and used to living in a world in which conservative Republicans are the good guys and liberal Democrats are the bad guys. In other words, she’s inclined to like all of the GOP candidates. She’s also, most likely, suspicious of RINOs and sell-outs. But how can you tell? Well, endorsements actually help with that. After all, would known Tea Party extremist Christine O’Donnell endorse Romney if he was really a (gulp) moderate?
Think of it this way: when you’re trying to decide between very similar candidates (and other than Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, each of the major GOP candidates have basically very similar positions on public policy issues), what you need is information. But information from the candidates, while useful, is always at least a bit untrustworthy; obviously, in the heat of the campaign, they’re trying to tell you what you want to hear. What endorsements give you is useful information: someone with her own reputation to care about is willing to vouch for Romney as a solid conservative.
Of course, she might just be flaky. Individual endorsements generally aren’t a big deal. What tends to matter is the pattern. And so far, the pattern of endorsements, especially at the national level, indicate that Romney is slowly grinding out a broad base of high-profile supporters. It’s not enough, by any means, to guarantee him the nomination, but it is helpful. Especially since the other candidates have had so little success in that area.
So while one obviously shouldn’t put too much weight on any single endorsement, O’Donnell’s not a bad catch for Romney at all. And the truth is that the more clowns he can have on his side, the better. After all, the very first thing to remember about partisan Republicans is that if they find out that liberals don’t like someone, that’s who they want to support. Anything that the Mittster can do to get mocked by liberals is a real plus for him at this point, and for that, O’Donnell is one of the best.
Facebook
Twitter
Chris on December 14, 2011 9:27 AM:
the very first thing to remember about partisan Republicans is that if they find out that liberals don’t like someone, that’s who they want to support.
Excellent point. However, if Mitt wins the nomination, I suspect he'll drop her like a bad habit.
Kathryn on December 14, 2011 9:28 AM:
Welcome Jonathan, point well taken, I agree. Mittens should use the words "he's been consistent since he changed his mind" in his campaign, a great bumper sticker. Not to be taken as a factual statement though, as his flip flops are usually serial.
DAY on December 14, 2011 9:30 AM:
Good first post to get our juices flowing!
"I'm not a witch!" endorsing Romney reminds me of the Groucho joke about not wanting to join any club that would have him as a member. . .
T2 on December 14, 2011 9:30 AM:
"she might just be flaky" - yep. maybe so.
Montana on December 14, 2011 9:32 AM:
Welcome Jonathan. Nice of you to sub for Steve.
But can't you convince him to take a full week off once in awhile? As a fellow writer I know how hard it is to stop working. And we'd all miss him of course. But everyone needs a break from time to time. Even Steve.
As for Christine O'Donnell, she actually reminds me of Romney. Flaky maybe, but more likely it's just that they haven't a clue. It's a perfect match.
SadOldVet on December 14, 2011 9:37 AM:
Nice first posting, Mr. Bernstein!
Even if it is late. You must be low & slow. Steve would have 6 blogs already by this time!
P.S. - Commenters on this blog occasionally engage in hyperbole. Welcome to Steve's blog - a heavy weight target to try to fill in for.
QuestionEverything on December 14, 2011 9:39 AM:
"After all, the very first thing to remember about partisan Republicans is that if they find out that liberals don’t like someone, that’s who they want to support"
Welcome Jonathan! It's good to have you here.
I've heard that from several, but not all, 'know-nothing except what Fox tells me' Republicans over the years. They can't make a convincing argument for supporting a candidate with facts or they're ability or perceived ability to run the country, they use the silly argument that: if it pisses of 'liberals' then naturally they must be good for the country, they must be capable, fact-based, knowledgeable, credible, with strong leadership, and so on. So my 'reaction' to their nonsense makes them a credible candidate.
My biggest frustrations with these farsical dipshits are that they are too stupid to know that they're stupid, they expect to be treated as credible people on topics that they are woefully ignorant on, and they're too full of themselves to consider their 'information' without evidence. What they consider "facts" are what they are told on TV/Fox. Many times, it's nothing more than a baseless accusation or opinion but that turns into a "fact" somehow.
Peter C on December 14, 2011 9:44 AM:
O'Donnell is an interesting phenomenon. She has what Newt lacks - beauty. That is important to Republicans, at least in women. The Republicans are confusing two things, though. I think there is a deep-seated prediliction to want to equate beauty with virtue. But I don't think that goes for 'hotness'.
With candidates like O'Donnell and Palin, Republicans are betting on the power of the reptilian brain; it seems to be a dubious strategy. Yes, for a thug it might be nice to have a government official who is a milf, but are you going to vote for some other guy for president based upon her advice? I'm not sure thugs look to milfs for advice.
chi res on December 14, 2011 9:49 AM:
he’s been consistent since he changed his mind
More like: he's been consistent about changing his mind
(I heard there's some hanky-panky between Mitts and Chrissie. Pass it on.)
jcricket on December 14, 2011 9:52 AM:
It's that old venture capitalist frame of thought at work in Mitten's brain. Never a long term strategist, he thinks of what will get him the biggest profit this quarter. It doesn't matter what groundwork needs to be in place for a successful Q3 or Q4, or even a next year.
Clearly, this quarter Mitt's goal is to stake a claim at Teatardiness. Next quarter - who knows?
c u n d gulag on December 14, 2011 9:52 AM:
Welcome Jonathan!
And a Home Run in your first at bat, too!
Oooh!
Mitt got the much needed ex-Wiccan support.
Can Angle, Paladino, and other failed, due to the damned Liberals, Conservative loons (but I repeat myself) be far behind?
Come one, come all - and the crazier the better!
Mitt needs all the crazy bone-head fides he can get.
SYSPROG on December 14, 2011 9:54 AM:
Welcome Jonathan! For a nice review of how Republicans think (or at least some of them) you might want to watch Jon Stewart from last night when he discusses 'beliefs and facts'. It is pitch perfect. It's the segment with The Florida Family Association. My oh my.
Ohioan on December 14, 2011 9:57 AM:
"He’s been consistent since he changed his mind"
Did she really say that? Some endorsement!
Welcome Jonathan - I often confuse you with economist Jared Bernstein, but will try not to anymore!
T2 on December 14, 2011 10:07 AM:
since Peter C brought up Palin...I wonder what her take on Newt is? At what point will she try to re-inject herself in the national process and on who's side? And will anyone care? My recollection was that the Witch and Palin were sort of at odds.
Trinity on December 14, 2011 10:34 AM:
Bravo Jonathan! That O'Donnell quote is...well, just wow. I recently started following your blog and am delighted you will be filing in here for Steve.
I really think that conservatives are basically for whatever pisses of liberals the most. Period.
suekzoo on December 14, 2011 10:35 AM:
Couple what Christine said about Mitt being consistent since he changed his mind with what Ann Coulter said last night on Fox: "What I'm saying now is: Of the available candidates, Romney is, by far, the most conservative -- tied with Michele Bachmann -- and he has a proven ability to win in a state like Massachusetts." ....which he did when he told voters that he was a "progressive."
They really should take this show on the road.
ahoy polloi on December 14, 2011 10:40 AM:
Good first post, but you gotta knock it out of the park when it's set up on a tee like that.
"How do you know she is a witch?"
"She tried to turn me into a Newt!"
"A Newt?!"
"....I got better..."
It's also important to remember that any tea party candidate that lost is necessarily a victim of the liberal media, and given Romney's disregard for that group, it's best to stock up on friends with similar anti-lamestream media cred.
markg8 on December 14, 2011 10:47 AM:
jcricket I think the term you're looking for isn't venture capitalist but vulture capitalist. Venture capitalists put their money into tiny long shots with a good idea that can't get regular funding and provide actual business expertise to build them into viable companies. Romney may have done some of that but more often than not he found companies worth more in pieces to be sold off, outsourced and bled dry.
Grumpy on December 14, 2011 10:48 AM:
"...he’s been consistent since he changed his mind."
And the more times he changes his mind, the more consistenter he gets. He's been consistent on more separate occasions than Gingrich has ex-wives!
Trollop on December 14, 2011 10:49 AM:
I am not a which?
JS on December 14, 2011 10:59 AM:
If there's a large base of conservative voters that would support someone because "they piss liberals off", that could at least partially explain Newt's rise. Or at least the whole 'Anybody but Romney' character of the pre-primaries.
I think politically tuned-in people laugh at serial flip-flopper Romney more than they get mad at him. Mitt's as boring to liberals as he is to any conservative.
markg8 on December 14, 2011 11:06 AM:
Jonathan I'm not so sure about McDonnell being a useful endorsement. While what you say about endorsements is true for the most part even GOP activists will disregard the real idiots with Palin being the exception. McDonnell did lose afterall and many wingnut bloggers were very upset about the laughingstock campaigns run by her and Sharron Angle. The incredibly dumb ”he’s been consistent since he changed his mind” line will just remind them she's not only a loser but an embarrassing one at that. She'll make the rounds for a day or two saying nice things about Mittens but after that she'll be shunted back up to the attic. It probably won't hurt him but it's not gonna help him much. The potential for damage comes if he only has endorsements from Quail and McDonnell when endorsement season really starts. Unless he has a bunch of other bigwigs on board does anyone really think Palin for instance wants to be lumped in with those other two? He already has Christie and several others so I don't see it as a big deal.
exlibra on December 14, 2011 11:44 AM:
But information from the candidates, while useful, is always at least a bit untrustworthy; obviously, in the heat of the campaign, they’re trying to tell you what you want to hear. -- Jonathan Bernstein
O'Donnell's endorsement is equally suspect. She may be a Tea Potty favourite, but she's always skint and is, probably, cheaply bought. Romney, OTOH, has pots of money...
"he's been consistent since he changed his mind" should be a bumper sticker *Dems* ought to sport, if Romney gets the nomination; it's *that* good. After all, the time span covered by "since" is, often, no more than 24hrs.
And, almost forgot... Welcome to the Political Animal. Hope your posts here won't be the same at those in the 10 Miles Square; I don't think I could stand having my reading matter halved :)
Stetson Kennedy on December 14, 2011 1:11 PM:
After all, the very first thing to remember about partisan Republicans is that if they find out that liberals don’t like someone, that’s who they want to support.
But what happens when conservatives mock the endorsement? That's the risk, and it's a very real one.