Rasmussen: Romney May Be the End of the Line for the Republican Establishment

[TroyD]

Interesting that even Rasmussen is talking about the possibility of Romney losing now. Don't think I've seen him write a piece like this before.

------------

Friday, September 21, 2012

A Commentary By Scott Rasmussen

Romney's remarks are the GOP equivalent of Obama's notorious comments about small-town Pennsylvania voters bitterly clinging to their guns and religion.

SNIP

In the nation's capital, this gap creates bigger problems for Republicans than Democrats. Democratic voters tend to think that their representatives in Congress do a decent job representing them. That's because Democrats are a bit more comfortable with the idea of government playing a leading role in American society. However, 63 percent of Republican voters believe their representatives in Washington are out of touch with the party base.

SNIP

The Republican base is looking for someone like a 21st century Ronald Reagan, who will display his faith in the American people. The Washington Republicans are more comfortable with politicians like George W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Though the establishment has dominated the party since Reagan left the White House, the 2012 election could well be the end of the line.

If Romney loses in November, the Republican base will no longer buy the electability argument for an establishment candidate. From the view of the base, the elites will have given away an eminently winnable election. Someone new, from outside of Washington, will be the party's nominee in 2016.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_scott_rasmussen/romney_may_be_the_end_of_the_line_for_the_republican_establishment

[DCBob]

1. Wow. Sounds like Raz may be throwing in the towel.

This might explain the PA numbers where he has O up by 12.

[TroyD]

3. I was surprised by the Ras PA poll

That's the highest poll Obama has had in PA in months. Even higher than some of the Democratic-leaning polls.

[DCBob]

4. Me too.

It almost seems exaggerated. Hard to believe Obama would have that big of lead there.

[quaker bill]

2. This is where Howard Dean and BHO came from

Need I remind folks that John Kerry was the "electable one" in 2004? Hillary was supposed to be the "electable one" in 2008.

Gore, Kerry, and then Hillary ran the "no margin for error" campaign. You take all the understood blue states, and you win. The problem always was that if you miss only one of them, you lose. Hillary deployed her primary campaign to take all the big blue states, and ignored the red and pink states. This had become standard practice for the DLC candidates. The BHO side knew that if he took all the red and pink states, and one or two of the blue states late in the contest, he had the nomination.

Dean argued against "electability", Obama made it walk.

The republicans will end up doing much the same, but starting now, they will not have it together for 2016, because the money power likely does not believe in it. Dean brought money and power to reform and expanding the base as DNC chair. While Rahm and some others did not like it much, it powered wins in 2006 and 2008, and the neglect of it powered a loss in 2010.

[DCBob]

5. Interesting...

but I think for the Repubicans they are going to go more extreme and more conservative which I doubt will win unless that person is extremely charismatic and persuasive and our candidate is weak.

[TroyD]

7. That was Reagan's main strength

Because he was charismatic and was able to use humorous one-liners in the perfect situation (eg. "Sorry honey, I forgot to duck&quot , the nation fell in love with him and ignored what he was actually doing to the social safety net, amongst other things.

Other Republicans since Reagan have struggled to hide their failed policies behind the charisma and grandfatherly appeal that Reagan harnessed so masterfully.

It will not be easy finding another salesman.

[DCBob]

12. Yes indeed.

Its funny that most cons think Reagan was succesful because of his policies not his personality.

[Drunken Irishman]

24. Bingo.

You said it perfectly. Reagan masked his deficiencies by being extremely likable and charismatic. The same, really, applies to Bill Clinton, who was also able to bounce back from pitfalls because Americans loved him. No Republican has been able to tap into that Reagan love since ... even though they've tried. Bush was a 50+1 president and was only able to expand beyond that in the wake of 9/11 ... but even that got him, in 2004, pretty much 50+1 against Kerry!

No one likes Reaganomics. No one. I haven't found one person, outside the fanatic right, who says, "oh yeah ... that was a good idea!". It's why Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama can run against it, attack it, and score points for it. The problem is that Republicans today are still pushing it ... but they can't sell it because they're not Reagan. Americans don't like it.

So, they're pushing the failed Reagan policies no one likes without the thing that got 'em pushed in the first place - a charismatic president who people liked. He was like the old family member everyone loved ... even when he screwed up. THEY EVEN CALLED HIM UNCLE RONNIE!

"Aww, Uncle Ronnie got drunk, pulled down his pants and showed the whole family his pecker ... isn't he a hoot?"

But when Mitt Romney does the same thing, no one finds it cute.

[Kolesar]

6. Scott Rasmussen is dreaming of a "21st century Ronald Reagan"

That is all that the article is about. I wholly reject this:
"Both Romney and Obama highlighted the condescending attitude that political elites hold of the people they want to rule over."

The republican base is brainless Fox News idiots and bigots. It is not that complicated.

[Cosmocat]

8. Yes

because the republicans up up an arrogant, disconnected elite of the elites that means that President Obama is one, too.

I like the guy plenty, thank you.

[DCBob]

13. All cons have a pipe dream of a reincarnated Reagan to lead them to victory.

America is a much different place now and I dont think even RR 2.0 can save them.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. what Rasmussen means is that far-right, tea party type Republicans will dominate ..I think he is

right ... at least the far-right tea party type Republicans will dominate in 2016 and probably for a while longer. Among the base - the logic goes that McCain and Romney lose because they are too liberal. The think if they run a "real conservative" they will win. I agree that this new conventional wisdom will dominate the GOP for awhile. But it will make winning on a national scale extremely difficult for them.

[buzzman]

10. stick a fork in romney. make that two forks.

it's over

[Cosmocat]

11. It is all pure and unmitigated BULLSHIT

they candidate is bad, but no worse in different ways than the other dozen or so nitwits they had to choose from.

The biggest issue is what they are selling, and BY FAR the biggest hits on his campaign has been when they have been honest about what they want to do.

The Ryan VP pick was at best a non-factor and likely initiated a dip in the polls at the time. What is not to like about Ryan (the lying aside), he is good looking, has a seemingly decent mannerism, has a nice, perfect little politician story to his life. But "his" budget put in paper what the party wants to do - destroy the social safety net AND the social contracts of SS and Medicare.

The 47% comment was pure and simple honesty. This is the exact thing I hear from the "base" when I talk to hard core republicans at the gym, at work, in the community. They at their heart believe this because they have become so indoctrinated in that vile hatred that AM radio has spewed for 30 years now that it has become a reality to them.

Romney believes this stuff like the rest of them. His only fault in their eyes is that in that past he was willing to give in on some of the tangent issues they need to keep their "base" codified to get elected.

Sure, they want another Reagen. As people in this thread have accurately noted, they want that ever elusive person of some kind of charisma that they know will keep the ball moving in the direction of destroying this country while having the capacity to have people like him or her in some way.

I think people are making a mistake to think they can't do it, though.

We see it clearly, but 60% of the country does not see it so clearly.

And, if there is one thing the republican party is EXPERT at, it is either manufacturing rage to distract and create the division necessary to win elections or taking advantage of situations like 9-11 and their attempt to take advantage of the economy this time to win elections.

They are ruthless and unrelenting, and we have seen in human history that there there ALWAYS a market for fear and anger.

[magical thyme]

14. He pretty much guarantees that the 2016 GOP primaries will be 2012 redux

A slew of "pretty" teabagger wingnuts slinging hate versus the establishment-chosen (Jeb?) with a humongous war chest who can repeat the beat-up-the-leader one at a time and be the last one standing.

Only Jeb is a true political animal, unlike rMoney-boo-boo.

So in 2016, even if there is a full-on, rip-roaring economic recovery, we will need somebody who can take on Jeb and will paint a humongous, red "W" on him early and often.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Reagan Would Have The Same Problem As Rmoney

Last edited Sat Sep 22, 2012, 01:43 PM - Edit history (1)

Attracting black, brown, and Asian voters as well as socially liberal, college educated persons, and single women. They were a much smaller percentage of the electorate then.

Ron Brownstein of the National Journal wrote an article where he demonstrated if the 1984 election had the same demographic make up as the 2008 election Reagan's 1984 59-41 landslide becomes a modest 52-48 win and he certainly isn't winning CA or NY.

BTW, somebody needs to plug in the numbers but I think Carter could have eked out a plurality win or come really close in 1980 with today's electorate...

[fujiyama]

20. Yep, the demographic shifts are largely responsible for making many states

much more competitive today than they were years ago.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. I Have As Much Chance As Becoming Governor Of CA As Ronald Reagan Would Have If He Was Alive

Even given the Arnold exception...

[smorkingapple]

16. This has been my wet dream for a while now

They run a moderate, lose badly, think it's because they needed a Gingrich or Santorum firebreather in there and they run them in 2016 against Hillary leading to an even worse loss than 2012. Combined with the demographic trends which are killing them, we can stomp out the conservative disease for a loooooong time..

This has been my motto for these assholes for a while now. Enjoy.

[link:

|

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. It's Amazing How Few Analysts Realize How Demographic Trends Are Driving This Election

All Obama needs to do is win 38% or so of the caucasian vote and he wins. Both Dukakis and Kerry received over 40% of it. Obama received 43% of it in 2008.

[and-justice-for-all]

18. Republicanism is a fossil trying to exist in the 21st century...

NO one, but a small few, want to relive the 40s and 50s.

[sufrommich]

19. So Cain/Bachmann 2016? Please Teabaggers, make it so! nt

[WI_DEM]

23. enjoy your stay.