Update: Romney wins FRC's straw poll. Fred and Rudy tank. Hmm. Like I said - rising. And he may be the best man for the job, which is, forst and foremost, beating Hillary. I like him because of his private sector experience.
If you can step away from supporting any one candidate for the Republican nomination, one thing seems very certain, Romney is going to rise because of his strategy, the question is, how far and will it be enough to secure the nomination?
Fred is making in roads with so-called values voters, that hurts Rudy the most and McCain continues to draw some serious support, making it harder for anyone to truly break out on the national front. Romney hasn't been embraced by the Christian Right, but they haven't turned away from him as much as they appear to have as regards Rudy.
As the Washington Times points out here, Rudy's strategy involves taking some early lumps in what have traditionally been important early state primaries. Obviously, Romney's strategy has been to perform as well as possible in those states.
Rudy's real problem may be one of perception. He's been seen as the front runner for most of the year and both Romney and Thompson are going to take on the appearance of having momentum while Rudy will look as though he's going the other way. Real, or perceived, momentum can be a tricky thing to manage, by definition, it has the capacity to take on a life of its own and create story lines that fuel the process.
We may see a quick leveling of sorts during which two factors, maybe even three, will be critical. The key linked questions in and around the early primaries should be these:
1) Can Thompson make himself look like a real option in the early primaries and start raising the kind of money he'll need for a break out on Super-Duper Tuesday?
2) Can Romney emerge looking enough like a winner to start something of a wave in his favor?
3) Does Rudy end up looking like he's fading, causing even more people to start looking at the options above?
4) Does McCain stay viable enough to at least play the spoiler with a very long shot at being the last man standing at the end, word is he's broke?
It's more wide open than it may appear, but of all the candidates above and taking into account money on hand, Romney may actually be the best positioned. But it'll be over for him quickly if he can't immediately capitalize on the first one or two primaries. I'd anticipate a major spend from him after Iowa and NH to go for the Gold with Rudy wondering if he should meet him then, or try to hold off a couple weeks and come in big in late January.
Traditionally this gets decided between Christmas and New Years. That's what Romney wants. Rudy needs for people to wait.
I have been and still am perplexed by the question of "momentum". Momentum in the stock market seems to mean folks and institutions are buying stock A and are buying more of it every day. The question is are MOST of the buyers doing so because others are buying. Or is it that company A is actually becoming a better buy (making/sharing more profit for shareholders, etc) and investors are becoming more and more aware of it?
In professional golf the media tries to present the action as a race. Golfers who make mistakes toward the end of the tourney are presented as not being able to handle the pressure, so they fade like horses who tire at race's end. Golfers who score better toward the end of the tourney are presented as being able to come from behind with the character to withstand pressure. These presentations may have some validity.
However, in a game of numbers like golf every stroke counts the same. Three bad shots or putts on Thursday mourning count just as much as three bad ones on Sunday afternoon. Golf is not really a race. It is a counting of good and bad strokes. It does not really matter when they are made.
I guess this thread deals with elections as stock market momentum. So I'm still stuck with my problem: do voters vote for someone because they think others will vote that way too? Or are votes accumulating because of people learning more good things about candidate A?
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Saturday, October 20, 2007 at 12:09 PM
My turn off on Romney is his past positions that are on the record that are inconsistent with what he says now. Important issues to me like being pro-life.
Posted by: Jay | Saturday, October 20, 2007 at 12:24 PM
It's gotta be the magic underwear.
Posted by: scarshapedstar | Saturday, October 20, 2007 at 02:28 PM
pretty damn sad someone could be hung up on underwear. Don't tell me, into fruit of the looms.
Posted by: Cindi | Sunday, October 21, 2007 at 01:34 AM
Cindi
Good one, but in scardar's case I prefer- fruit of the loon.
Posted by: Terry Gain | Sunday, October 21, 2007 at 07:48 AM
Wow, a SAINT and a PRESIDENT! The rest of the Scientologists will be so proud! Tom Cruise for Sec. of State!
Posted by: bobInStamford | Sunday, October 21, 2007 at 09:20 AM
Some photos provided by Zombietime of the enemy within freely exercising their right to protest no mater how stupidly, irrationally, and hatefully. This is America after all, and looking at these unfortunate Leftist anti-semites is only one more price we have chosen to pay for creating and preserving a free western society...but we don't have to like them. In fact we can hate them, as I do. Their friends the Palestinians, Iranians, Saudis, etc, would massacre these kinds of demonstrators on their soil. Civilization vs savagery. Which would you prefer?
http://zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Sunday, October 21, 2007 at 09:49 AM
Oh, yes the topic of the thread. Whoever is elected POTUS may have to replace Bush as the favorite effigy of these "protesters" discussed above.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Sunday, October 21, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Ain't about the "magic underwear", or the other vagaries of Mormonism.
It's all about the "flip flop". His flip flops are pointedly on record, and there is no amount of back-peddling and rounds of the "I'm sorry I was such a tool" dance that can change it, unless he publicly repents and accepts Jesus Christ plus nothing, minus nothing - as his Saviour. And even then, he might have a hard time of it.
FDT on the other hand, did a few hours of legal work that are of very small consequence in terms of keeping abortion legal. His track record as a senator show that he cares for the lives of unborn children.
Rudy? That "man" doesn't seem very repentant to me, and he will do nothing to stop the flow of unborn blood and the proliferation and softening of perceptions of vile and unnatural sexual acts, much less the public indoctrination of our children at ever younger ages to these same vile practices.
Unfortunately, Fred Beloit hits it nail-on-head by comparing the election (esp. POTUS) to a run-up on a favoured stock... with a few twists: with enough money and enough spin, and the blessing of the pre-SD Tuesday primaries, Candidate/Stock "A" is almost assured his place.
Posted by: seekeronos | Monday, October 22, 2007 at 01:07 AM
wow all this pretense about jesus and yet what do you talk about? Sex and abortion. I'm pretty sure Jesus talked about helping the poor more than those things. You are a faker sir.
Posted by: LOL | Monday, October 22, 2007 at 01:17 AM
How about that little extra donation to Uncle Sam with your 2007 tax return there, LOL? A little something extra to finance your socialistic dreams?
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Monday, October 22, 2007 at 06:57 AM
"--- I'm pretty sure Jesus talked about helping the poor more than those things. ---"
Most of what Jesus had to say during His ministry on earth was about getting saved, and trusting Him for that salvation. Helping the poor and avoiding sexual morality are outworkings of that salvation. In short, they are the acts of a Christian.
Since the majority of Americans (so you would have us believe, LOL) are not Christians, helping the poor and feeding widows and orphans who cannot provide for their own sustenance do not come so easily for them. However, avoiding murder and certain heinous sexual sin is something that should bother the conscience of anyone - save for those whose consciences are seared and defiled by an abundance of sexual sin and murder and violence.
Murdering innocent babies is a detestable thing that will ensure God's vengeance and wrath upon a nation that open endorses and participates in it. Most nations that practice ritualized baby murder/sacrifice to false gods are usually judged to condemnation by the True God (Jesus) much more swiftly than they are for a multitude of other sins.
It is not reasonable to attempt to control what two or more consenting ADULTS do in their BEDROOMS behind closed doors... the Lord sees and knows all about what goes on, and will hold those who sin to account at the judgment day. Therefore, I won't harp on those folks who keep their illicit activities in private.
However. my biggest heartburn comes when perversity and sexual deviancy are taught in my children's schools and in other public media as being "normal". Or when wicked behaviour is "normalized" by the forced mainstreaming of perversion.
Like that Folsom Fair thingy in San Fransicko - it wasn't the stupid and tasteless Miller advert that troubled me (after all, they are mocking my Lord to their own confusion --- for He is well able to avenge Himself, and doesn't need my help) but I still think that everyone who "performed" in that event ought to be fined and jugged for a month or two for public indecency.
That is more a reflection on that accursed city's elders who permit such a disgusting display of perversion, especially when children are brought to watch it.
And it certainly doesn't help much when two of the parents of a set of twin daughters dressed out in leather harnesses and dog collars just happen to be a gay couple.
Is it any wonder that people do not want gays to get "married" and have "families"...!
Posted by: seekeronos | Monday, October 22, 2007 at 11:31 AM
This is HUGE news!
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Congratulations, Future President Huckleberry!!
Posted by: chris | Monday, October 22, 2007 at 01:11 PM
Do you feel threatened chris?
Posted by: Cindi | Monday, October 22, 2007 at 01:31 PM
I feel very threatened. To have both Chuck Norris and the LORD on your side is pretty big.
Posted by: chris | Monday, October 22, 2007 at 01:46 PM
Romney is winning more by default than anything. The red netroots feel out of love with Fred when he failed to catch on fire. McCain's maverick status doesn't carry much water when "maverick" translates to "doesn't like evangelicals". Guiliani is too busy talking to his wife via mid-conference cell phone to worry much about his wavering poll numbers or his increasingly irate Christian base. And the rest are... well... the rest. Ron Paul will always have a cult following, but the Libertarian Wing of the Republican Party never won anybody any elections.
So you're looking for someone who's not a drama queen, has more than a flash-in-the-pan political record, wins over the Jesus crowd, and has the right friends in the right places to secure a nomination.
The only guy who passes all the benchmarks is Mitt Romney. Republicans are finally putting down their fear of Massachusetts and Mormons to give him a real look.
Posted by: IslamoLlama | Monday, October 22, 2007 at 05:18 PM
Also, on a completely different note, is this what they would call a swing state?
http://politicsnj.com/lyndhurst-gop-nearly-all-them-switching-parties-13078
Posted by: IslamoLlama | Monday, October 22, 2007 at 05:56 PM
"avoiding sexual morality"
Ah seeker, the freudian slip reveals the truth. As I said, you're a faker
Posted by: LOL | Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Romney doesn't have the national pull. He's used his own money and he's played the game quite well. I sense the Republican establishment is going to go with him. I feel it's a huge mistake. Heck, I think McCain would do better against Hillary than Romney. Romney doesn't have personality, they should run his wife, she's got it. Seriously, I'd rather watch paint dry.
Posted by: tally | Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at 03:02 AM
I don't see a "freudian slip", LOL... but be at peace with whatever your bankrupt mind likes to make out of a grammatic error.
I too, am only a sinner saved by grace.
My point is and remains that a candidate's willingness to tolerate and even encourage immorality and the murder of unborn babies is a clear benchmark of his social policy, which amounts to a very self-destructive end.
And to re-iterate: Jesus cared much more for saving souls from hell than building governments or financing massive cradle-to-grave social programs. He does care for the poor, but He also cares much for righteousness, which includes turning away from sexual wickedness and murder, and many other sins.
I've only focused on those to the extent that the two leading GOP candidates have open endorsed perversion and baby-murder. Preventing murder and restraining the pervasiveness of vile perversions in the public forum come very high on a list of things to do. Assisting our underclasses (largely by "teaching them how to fish", as the parable goes) is not far from it, but is certainly secondary.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matthew 6:33, KJV)
Posted by: seekeronos | Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at 12:13 PM